On September 12, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the upper chamber’s floor to praise the work of the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy, a congressionally appointed…

Those chickens are coming home to roost.

Politics Third-Party Lawsuit Funding Wreaks Havoc With the Justice System American law suffers when it becomes a bludgeon, whether by targeted lawsuits against political enemies or profit-seeking corporate actions. Credit: image via Shutterstock Lawfare against Republican lawyers is being funded by groups like The 65 Project. Third parties (often anonymously) fund class action lawsuits as an investment product. The traditional purpose and function of courts is under attack. When the court becomes not a venue for justice but a political weapon or a place to make a return on investment, the nation loses a valuable piece of what makes its system of government great. What happens to a free nation when the ability of its citizens to file, conduct, and defend against impartial lawsuits is undermined? It looks like the United States is going to find out. This nation has understood the importance of fair and impartial access to courts of law from its founding. Article III of the US Constitution creates the Supreme Court; it also ensures that all criminal trials shall be by jury and shall be held within the state where a crime occurred, so that a defendant is tried by the people in the jurisdiction where the event took place. The Bill of Rights fills out these legal safeguards, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, preventing double jeopardy, laying out specific rights for both criminal and civil trials. The American legal system is emphatic that there ought to be a clear, impartial functioning of courts, so that both criminal cases and civil lawsuits are tried fairly. A republic cannot function when corrupt or inaccessible court systems prevent the people from accessing justice. When one looks at the work being done by The 65 Project—a comprehensive plan to raise funds and use them to wage lawfare against conservative lawyers—it doesn’t look much like a use of the justice system that the Founding Fathers would appreciate. Hayden Ludwig wrote an excellent report on this worrying operation. Founded and led by exactly the kind of characters you’d expect (veteran Democratic operatives), The 65 Project was started specifically to go after lawyers who dared to mount any kind of legal challenge to the results of the 2020 election.  Putting aside the shady conglomeration of dark-money groups involved in the project, the aim of the organization is chilling. Whether the target is Sidney Powell for filing legal challenges to electoral regularities, John Eastman for writing a legal memo explaining the potential constitutional options available on January 6, 2021, or even Alan Dershowitz defending the very lawyers The 65 Project is attacking, the message is clear: If lawyers challenge a Democratic electoral victory, defend certain high-profile conservatives in court, or otherwise take on the reigning regime, there will be consequences. The 65 Project will ensure that lawyers who take on such political cases will be sued, prosecuted, and stripped of their licenses to practice law. Irrespective of one’s opinions about the merits of the 2020 election suits, it is disturbing that an organization exists for the sole purpose of funding legal campaigns targeting individuals for doing their jobs. This is a mockery of the American legal tradition, where an individual party either makes a civil claim or files a report because a harmful action was done to him. In that case, he hires a lawyer (or speaks to a prosecutor) and the case begins and grows organically. But when millions of dollars are being raised so that a third-party organization can instigate politically motivated lawsuits that will dissuade conservative lawyers from taking certain cases or defending certain individuals, this is a gross, inorganic perversion of the legal process. It is a different matter when people donate money to the Alliance Defending Freedom to litigate religious freedom or to the ACLU to litigate whatever causes they are promoting these days. In those cases, the organizations exist to promote broad general principles and take on certain types of cases. But The 65 Project is different. It is oriented not toward general issues but at funding and encouraging targeted litigation against particular individuals: Your donor dollars will ensure that conservative lawyers X and Y will be punished for their work. Public-interest law firms are one thing; direct funding of litigation by third parties to silence political opposition is another. If you donate to Alliance Defending Freedom, you are donating to some legal action in defense of religious freedom. But if you donate to The 65 Project, you likely know specifically what you are purchasing: an attack on a particular conservative lawyer who dared to help Trump or one of his allies in court. The 65 Project uses the legal system as a weapon against political enemies, degrades the rule of law, makes the United States function more like a corrupt Third-World regime, and severely chills speech and conservative political legal work. Who wants to go defend Republican election lawsuits when the lawyer could be disbarred, sued, or even thrown in jail for his efforts? “Conservative lawyers: think twice!” is exactly the message the left wants you to take from this lawfare campaign. But there is a more general and fundamental problem with these types of legal arrangements: third parties generally should not be funding litigation in which they are not involved. The model rules governing legal ethics recognize the threat of third-party funding: Rule 1.8(f) addresses such concerns by forbidding attorneys to take funds from anyone other than the client unless there is informed consent, the third-party relationship causes no interference with the lawyer’s independence, and the relationship with the client (including confidentiality) is not jeopardized. The reasons for caution are obvious when a non-party to a lawsuit is paying the legal bills. Does the financial backer of the lawsuit get access to confidential information? Does he have a say in strategy? Does he make the ultimate decision about when to settle or when to press forward? These should always be conversations between the party and his attorney. Introducing a third-party with a financial interest can severely muddy the water. There are cases where the purpose of lawsuits being funded by third parties is clearly political activism. But there is another (also disturbing and inappropriate) category of third-party funding, where the goal is not activism but return on investment. This trend has been well-documented: Investors (often hedge funds or private equity groups) fund tort lawsuits to make a profit. Sometimes these are simply small, predatory investments: Investors find poor, vulnerable people who have been injured and are involved in a tort lawsuit, offer to pay them the equivalent of a “payday loan,” and then take the proceeds of the lawsuit to pay back the loan (along with exorbitant fees and interest). At other times, the third-party funding is in the form of fronting cash for a large class-action lawsuit, where the third party pays up front for legal costs—as well as non-legal expenses, such as advertising to find additional plaintiffs. In exchange, the third party gets a percentage of the award when the case settles or goes to trial. A civil lawsuit is supposed to remedy the injury by “making the parties whole.” If a plaintiff was injured, the lawsuit resolves justly when he is offered a settlement large enough to cover his medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the like. But how does the equation change when a third party has poured money into court costs, advertising fees, etc. for the purpose of making a profit? Will the amount that makes the plaintiff whole also provide a sufficient profit margin for the investor? And will the third-party investor have a say in whether to reject a settlement (even one that satisfies the plaintiff) in the hopes of a bigger payout at trial? Further, third-party funding raises serious questions about confidentiality. How involved are the third parties in the lawsuit? Do they have access to the lawyer-client conversations? What about the document discovery process? Is it possible that third-party funders of lawsuits (who are sometimes anonymous) may be corporations funding lawsuits against competitors, and that they may use these suits as a vehicle to gain access to their competitors’ sensitive documents during the discovery process?  The political lawfare being engaged in by groups like The 65 Project and the lawsuit-as-investment model have different particular problems, but share a basic vice: When plaintiffs are being funded by (often anonymous) third parties rather than the parties themselves, the legal system becomes a weapon rather than a tool for achieving justice.  Whether footing the bill to sue John Eastman for ideological purposes or to sue big pharma in hopes of a major payday, third-party funding of litigation needs to be reined in by state legislatures. There are reasonable exceptions: paying for a lawyer when your brother makes a mistake and ends up in jail for the night, or when a family member is sued and doesn’t have the money for her own attorney. But the practice probably shouldn’t go much further than that. Anonymity, access to confidential information (especially documents obtained in discovery), and control of the decision-making process by third-party funders need to be closely scrutinized by lawmakers. From political lawfare to frivolous lawsuits, the integrity of the American legal system is under attack. Finding ways to disincentivize third-party funding from flowing into legal cases, so that parties to a lawsuit actually pay their own legal fees and therefore maintain control of their own legal affairs, is important to ensure our system of justice is not a place where the right infusion of cash can punish a political enemy, obtain trade secrets from a competitor, or offer a return on investment. Shut off some of the financial spigots and the frivolous way in which our courts are abused may begin to dry up. The post Third-Party Lawsuit Funding Wreaks Havoc With the Justice System appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs What If There Were Russian Missiles in Canada? Washington demands from other nations what it would not tolerate for itself. Imagine it is October 2025. A ceasefire has been achieved between Russia and Ukraine. Moscow’s attention shifted to North America. Canada’s left-wing prime minister leaned toward making a trade deal with Russia and its Central Asian partners. Washington, however, offered a last-minute financial sweetener, an early Christmas present of sorts, and Ottawa turned back to the U.S. Angry crowds hit the streets, causing chaos in Canada’s capital. Moscow promotes the violence, as its propagandists lauded democracy in action. When the police give way, Canada’s premier flees south. Russian operatives begin putting their candidates for office forward, and new elections confirm a sharp shift toward Russia, which invites Ottawa to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The U.S. responds by invading Canada. The Canucks prove surprisingly resilient against personnel used to fighting distant irregulars, and Moscow floods Canada with weapons, including missiles, for use against America. The first salvo results in strikes on cities across America, including on the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Predict Washington’s reaction. 1) Officials admit that Moscow had every right to send arms for Canada’s defense, noting that “it’s something that we did for Ukraine”; 2) policymakers agree that the costs of the continuing war were too great and decided to make a humiliating withdrawal; 3) the president warns that unless Russia stood down “immediately,” there would be serious and deadly consequences.  Before answering, remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. Of course, there would be major differences from October 1962. Yet the disparity of interests between the parties and the willingness of the threatened party to take greater risks are similar. Moreover, though Moscow is weaker conventionally, nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizer. Indeed, the mere threat of Russian nuclear strikes might drive allied states out of the fray. Nevertheless, Ukraine, allied states, and many American politicians continue to press the Biden administration to allow Kiev to use anything for any purpose against Russia. And American officials piously dismiss Vladimir Putin’s claim that approving use of U.S. missiles for use against Russia would place the two nations at war. Nevertheless, cooler heads may yet prevail. Only a couple weeks ago commentators were certain that Washington would join London in approving removal of restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western missiles. However, no announcement was forthcoming. The administration’s refusal to toss caution to the wind has generated a tsunami of caterwauling, especially by European governments (even though the Pentagon does not believe lifting restrictions would turn the military tide in Kiev’s favor). An increasing number of allied policymakers appear ready to adopt Mad Magazine’s famous slogan, “What, me worry?” Americans should worry. Already the U.S. and other NATO governments have deployed ground forces, many as de facto combatants, in Ukraine. The argument for coming as close as possible to participating in a war without directly shooting at the other side—allied troops are already in Ukraine operating donated weapons—is deceptively simple. Putin is a wimpy blowhard who knows that Moscow would lose any confrontation with the West. Hence, the allies can do whatever they want and Russia will be forced to accept the consequences. So why not bombard his cities and humiliate his people? What could possibly go wrong? A lot. It’s worth remembering that efforts to psychoanalyze Putin have failed miserably. President George W. Bush looked into the Russian president’s eyes, saw his soul, and decided that it was good. President Barack Obama was convinced that he could argue Putin out of his policies, such as hostility toward Kiev’s Poroshenko government and support for the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Donald Trump believed he could make a deal with Putin even after after his administration enhanced economic sanctions against Moscow and provided lethal aid to Ukraine. In February 2022 almost the entire panoply of policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic, including Russia specialists, dismissed the likelihood that Putin would launch a general invasion of Ukraine.  So, a little skepticism about the latest predictions from Washington and allied solons is warranted. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine ahead of time which redlines for anyone are real. We usually find out only after the other side has decided to enforce a supposed red line. In any case, there is an obvious reason why Putin has not yet acted. He is not squeamish about brutally suppressing his opponents. Moreover, it is foolish to underestimate the Russian military, despite its blundering setbacks in Ukraine. The force remains potent and has adapted well to the changing combat. Moscow possesses a nuclear arsenal comparable to America’s in size and better prepared for tactical use. Nevertheless, Putin remains a generally pragmatic, rational actor, despite a likely lack of honest feedback about his policies. So far he has sought to limit U.S. and European support for Ukraine with threats, but probably has failed to act on them because until now the risks have seemed greater than the rewards. Yet his assessment might change. Most importantly, he evidently believes that Russia is winning. Although Ukraine remains able to strike creatively and surprisingly, as in its incursion in Kursk and destruction of major Russian arms depots, the bilateral resource differential, especially in manpower, is daunting. Both Ukrainians and Russians are bleeding, but the former risk running out of human cannon-fodder sooner. Kiev looks a bit like the Confederacy in the Civil War and Germany in the Second World War, able to bloody their opponents but unable to change the outcome. So far there are no Wunderwaffe capable of forcing victory. At this time Putin would be foolish to expand the fight. Then Moscow likely would lose a conventional battle, while use of nuclear weapons could easily escalate into a country-ending cataclysm. Hence, Putin is demonstrating prudence, not cowardice. But the war could evolve unpredictably. Even irregular missile strikes on Moscow and other high-profile targets might increase domestic pressure on him to respond. Already the strongest internal criticism of his war policy comes from hawks, not doves. If Moscow elites begin to feel insecure, they could demand immediate and tougher retaliation. Moreover, even if Russia is objectively winning, internal pressures could threaten not only his rule, but also the autocratic regime and Russian state. He might have to speed the military advance and spite the Western allies to survive, though doing so risked a dangerous extension of the war. The Zelensky government might cheer this result, rather like British Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed his pleasure mixed with horror at hearing the news of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. But this course certainly would not be in the interest of America, which would bear the brunt of any war with Russia. Moscow also could respond asymmetrically. One option would be to ramp up sabotage and other operations in Europe, expanding the target set to energy facilities, electrical infrastructure, and other civilian targets—which, if discovered, would not provoke war. Russia also might strike limited military targets of hawkish NATO states, such as the United Kingdom. Moreover, Russia already is opposing the U.S. on multiple fronts around the world. At modest cost Putin’s government could act on its threats and increase military aid and weapons sales to Niger and other African governments turned hostile to Washington, as well as Iran, Syria, Yemen’s Houthis, and North Korea. Not unreasonably, asked Putin: “If someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone in order to strike at our territory, then why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where there will be strikes on sensitive facilities of those countries that are doing this to Russia?” So far Moscow appears to have been cautious about upsetting other nations with which it has cultivated relations, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and South Korea. However, Putin could decide that forbearance encourages continued U.S. escalation. He also could focus on America by, for instance, aiding North Korean construction of ICBMs capable of targeting the U.S. (The Republic of Korea already is within Pyongyang’s gun sights.) Such technical assistance would be difficult to discover and counteract. Worse, Moscow could aid North Korea’s existing and Iran’s presumed nuclear ambitions. Until now Russia has opposed proliferation. However, if the Putin government perceives the U.S. and NATO as waging war on Russia, that could change. The U.S. and Soviet Union fought several proxy wars, but always preserved a degree of distance and deniability. Today Americans and Europeans openly plan to spread fire and brimstone throughout Russia. Flip the situation around: Who believes that U.S. policymakers would submissively accept Russia sending missiles to Canada for use against America? Why assume that Russia would be more welcoming? Ultimately, U.S. policymakers must decide whom they represent. There is good reason to sympathize with Ukraine. Russia’s invasion was wrong and has resulted in mass casualties and destruction. The allies share responsibility for the conflict, but that does not exonerate Putin. Nevertheless, Ukraine is not in NATO because none of the allies, at least those which would do the serious fighting in any war with Russia, believed it was important enough for their security to defend. That hasn’t changed since 2022.  Putin is a malign actor, but hysterical claims that he is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin preparing a blitzkrieg to the Atlantic is silly. The Russian president went to war in Ukraine because he didn’t want a NATO country on his border which could leave him in conflict with Europe and the U.S. Why would he then attack other NATO members putting him at war with the rest of Europe and the U.S? Anyway, he lacks the wherewithal to conquer his neighbors, at least with reasonable hope of success and at reasonable cost, as Moscow’s extended battle with Ukraine demonstrates. The U.S. should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with Russia, a nuclear-armed major power, over interests that the latter believes to be vital. Putin has proved that he believes Ukraine is worth fighting over, while the U.S. did not before and does not now. As the weaker conventional power, Russia must rely more heavily on nuclear weapons to maintain an international balance. With Washington prepared to approach the military brink, Moscow cannot afford to back down, which would leave it a second-rate power. After muddling through the Cold War and avoiding nuclear conflict during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Able Archer Exercise contretemps, the U.S. should not risk it all over an issue never seen as important, let alone vital. The slogan “America First” acquired an ugly reputation from the 1930s. However, the underlying sentiment should be the animating philosophy for U.S. foreign policy, and especially decisions as to war and peace. Washington’s primary duty is to those whom it represents and who it expects to fight on its behalf. It has a moral responsibility to others, often violated. However, U.S. policymakers have no warrant to risk America’s future by promiscuously making other nations’ conflicts its own. What should NATO, and especially the U.S., do in Ukraine? This is no video game which can be reset at will. If Americans would not accept another nation supplying missiles to bombard the U.S. homeland, they should not expect Russians to do the same. President Joe Biden will leave a far more dangerous world than when he arrived. It is essential that he not prime Ukraine for a nuclear explosion on his way out. The post What If There Were Russian Missiles in Canada? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics RAND’s Grand Plan Here’s what the establishment has in store for us—and it isn’t pretty. (Sergey Novikov/Shutterstock) On September 12, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the upper chamber’s floor to praise the work of the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy, a congressionally appointed panel run out of the RAND Corporation. McConnell, summarizing the report’s findings, said, Any of our colleagues who haven’t yet taken a close look at this report should. But I’d like to reiterate a few of its conclusions that I discussed last month as the Appropriations Committee finalized defense spending legislation for the coming year. This ought to grab our attention:  From the report, quote, “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.”  A further quote, “the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners.” And, quote, “the U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise) required to adequately prepare.” Writing during the early months of the First World War, the journalist and grand strategist Walter Lippmann observed, “While it takes as much skill to make a sword as a ploughshare, it takes a critical understanding of human values to prefer the ploughshare.”  And, if anything, “human values” are conspicuous by their absence in the recommendations of the RAND Commission on the National Defense Strategy report, which, if implemented, would put the US on a permanent war footing likely to provoke—perhaps concurrently—wars in Asia, Europe, and the Greater Middle East. Necessarily, then, the report relies heavily on euphemism and the misleadingly anodyne terminology of defense experts. In response to the threat posed by the new “no-limits” partnership between Russia and China, the report recommends what it calls a “Multiple Theater Force Construct” since, in the view of the report’s authors, neither the previous “bipolar Cold War constructs and the two-war construct designed afterward for separate wars against less capable rogue states… meets the dimensions of today’s threat or the wide variety of ways in which and places where conflict could erupt, grow and evolve.” A combined defense and intelligence budget of roughly $1.4 trillion a year? Not enough! The “Multiple Theater Force Construct” is in reality a bid to create what far less euphemistically and more accurately might be called a “Global War Zone” where, as the report goes on to recommend, the U.S. “must engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic and economic—to maintain stability and preserve influence worldwide.”  Presence, not empire. Influence, not imperium. The report also evinces a deep-seated confusion between the level of defense expenditures and, well, results. The report claims that current defense expenditure of 3 percent of GDP is dangerously low—noting, During the Cold War, including the Korean War and Vietnam War, DoD spending ranged from 4.9 percent to 16.9 percent of GDP. The comparison to that period is apt in terms of the magnitude of the threat, risks of strategic instability and escalation and need for US global presence. Yet given the examples (U.S. and allied forces lost roughly 170,000 men in Korea and 280,000 in Vietnam) there is surely a case to be made that might be an inverse relationship between expenditure and security. The RAND commission speaks of the imperative to further “integrate” with our allies. At multiple points the report insists on the “indispensability” of our allies with whom we must deepen our cooperation. The U.S. “must continue to invest in strengthening its allies and integrating its military (and economic, diplomatic, and industrial) efforts with theirs.” Yet, as we have seen in the case with the now decade-long effort to wrangle Ukraine into NATO’s orbit, the search for endless allies is also a search for endless trouble. The report is very much a product of the former Democratic Representative Jane Harman, who served as the RAND Commission’s chair. Readers may recall that in 2006 Harman was picked up on a wiretap promising an Israeli spy she would lobby federal prosecutors to go easy on two officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. In return for that assistance, the Israeli agent offered to lobby then-Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi to name Harman as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. In a normal country, Harman’s offer to undermine a federal case to benefit a foreign power, as a sitting member of Congress no less, would have landed her in prison. At the very least, she’d be treated as persona non grata among the great and good of Washington. But instead Harman, wife of a California billionaire who later became the owner of Newsweek, was appointed to the CIA’s External Advisory Board only a couple of years after her quid pro quo was caught on tape. Still more, the commission was rife with conflicts of interest, as a report by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft pointed out last year. That said, if the authors of the RAND report are cognizant of any risks in creating a Global War Zone, they keep it to themselves. Might a conventional military build up in the Indo-Pacific prompt China to achieve nuclear parity with the US? Is the establishment’s nonchalance with regard to the risks of provoking Russia a reasonable position in light of the recent admission by CIA Director William Burns that “there was a moment in the fall of 2022” when he thought “there was a genuine risk” of the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia? RAND is likewise silent as to whether there exist alternative grand strategies that might better suit the moment, such as retrenchment. In the end, the RAND report leads one to a conclusion that can’t be avoided: The U.S. establishment is itself a threat to U.S. national security. The post RAND’s Grand Plan appeared first on The American Conservative.

Rebellion to Tyrants: The Sermon that Sparked the Revolution. 9-25-2024 - THE TRUE REVOLUTION BEGAN IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE, LONG BEFORE THE WAR WAS LAUNCHED - (This video was BLOCKED From Download on YouTube. I had to find the channel on Bitchute) - 2,426 views September 25, 2024 Tenth Amendment Center - I felt it necessary to point out that Reference to the Execution of the King as an Example of Resisting Tyranny. Wrong. Cromwell was FAR WORSE. Cromwell was a Truly Evil Psychopath and Genocidal Murderer. By taking Bribery Blood money from Jewish Banker Merchants in return ALLOWING JEWS WHO HAD BEEN BANNED FROM ENGLAND TO RETURN. The Complete Takeover of the Country Soon Followed and the Jewish Banksters USED England as a Base to Takeover the Entire World. And the Trial of the King was a Total Farse and illegal Disgrace. CROMWELL DESTROYED BRITAIN. HIS ACTIONS LED US TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER - “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” - Just after the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, a committee of Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin worked to design a great seal for the United States - and it included that powerful phrase on the reverse. While we don’t know who originally wrote it, we can trace its roots to Jonathan Mayhew’s widely read but mostly forgotten 1750 sermon on resisting tyranny. In it, he laid the moral and philosophical foundation for the Revolution - and in this episode, you’re going to learn all about it. Path to Liberty: September 25, 2024 - JOIN TAC: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/memb... Show Archives: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/path... Subscribe and Review on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter

Taxes are Theft. Here's How to Stop Paying Them (Legally) - 474,588 views April 8, 2024 Heresy Financial - TIMECODES 0:00 Video Overview 2:10 When There Was No Income Tax 3:46 What are Taxes? 8:39 How to Eliminate Your Tax Bill 14:57 All Roads Lead to Real Estate - Join my program Heresy Financial University: https://go.heresy.financial/join - Important Links: Heresy Financial University https://bit.ly/hrsymbr My Book - Why We Need the Fed (blank gag book) https://a.co/d/a7caB8Y My Shirts: https://amzn.to/3LGHTgr Join Heresy Financial University https://bit.ly/hrsymbr Affiliates & Partners: Monetary Metals https://monetary-metals.com/heresy-fi... Miles Franklin (tell them I sent you) https://www.milesfranklin.com/contact/ Vaulted https://vaulted.blbvux.net/2rXX47 OneGold https://bit.ly/3mS6dNo iTrustCapital https://itrust.capital/heresy Swan Bitcoin http://bit.ly/swnhrsy TradingView http://bit.ly/tvchrts GroundFloor https://groundfloor-finance.sjv.io/mg... Socials @HeresyFinancial Twitter:   / heresyfinancial   Insta:   / heresyfinancial   TikTok:   / heresyfinancial   Reddit:   / heresyfinancial   Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/HeresyFinancial - I am not a CPA, attorney, or licensed financial advisor and the information in these videos shall not be construed as tax, legal, or financial advice from a qualified perspective. Linked items may create a financial benefit for Heresy Financial. - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@HeresyFinancial

Elite Trafficking Blackmail [Ep.1]: NXIVM - Branding Ceremonies & Human Sacrifice Rituals - Sept. 25, 2024 MemoryHold 5.0 - All my links: LinkTr.ee/TheMemoryHold || - This is the raw audio of a phone call between NXIVM founder Keith Raniere and his #1, Smallville actress Allison Mack. On the call, they discuss how they should model the initiation ceremonies where they brand their victims with hot irons, stating how they should video record the entire thing for blackmail purposes, and how the events should be modeled after ancient human sacrifice rituals. - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@memoryhold

Megalopolis, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, follows the ambitious architect Cesar Catilina, played by Adam Driver, as he attempts to rebuild the city of New Rome into a utopia after a devastating disaster. His vision clashes with the corrupt Mayor Franklyn Cicero, portrayed by Giancarlo Esposito, leading to intense political and personal turmoil. The post Megalopolis first appeared on Worth it or Woke.