Oh it's laughable at this point. An announcement by the administration, or RFK Jr. specifically, then gets lambasted by the media.

This time about problems about taking acetaminophen too much during pregnancy.

And then the most basic research shows its validity, and yet again undresses the Big Pharma teat-sucking "news media."

They didn't find it at "Joe's Conspiracy Corner." Instead, a few little places you may have heard of - Mount Sinai, Harvard, UCLA - were the originators of the information. 

You know the "I'm HIM!!" exclamation from sports. 

I voted for him. A CRAZY big exception for a truly devoted Libertarian such as me.
But right now, let's be honest, Trump isn't "HIM."

He's not dominating. He not imposing his will to gain his intended and expressed victory. 

Latest example... How do you "denounce globalism" on the same day you use the bully pulpit to extend both wars he said he'd end??!! 

That is not winning. That is not MAGA (aka the interests of common Americans) winning.

Vote Libertarian. 

A horrific start turns into a comfortable week 3 win with at least some positive signs for the Kansas City Chiefs
(Correction: about 27 minutes in I referred to of the two times Patrick and the Chiefs succumbed to relentless pressure and mumbled that it was San Francisco. I meant the Buccaneers) 

A follow-up to TSOT125, about a government database being deleted nefariously. In that episode I saw a salvage operation as possible. 
And this ties to an announcement by Trump during Kirk's memorial service. If they are able to follow through, it is Earth shaking as to victories of truth over long held lies.

"Like raw calamari. Like some kind of rubber seafood."

Never forget. 

I've told you many times about one of the (predictably) disastrous and deadly effects of a plan to hijack the protein-forming function of the body to simulate a material foreign to the body instead of just introducing the foreign material and let the body react naturally.

But sometimes it's good to not just remember that you heard me say it, but instead original testimony from others.

When we say the Fauci, and Bourla, and company are world-class murderers... never forget. 

Maybe they never get punished. Who knows. But we must never forget.

Reviewing original audio of an on-the-ground witness testimony, a network reporter. 

A LOT missing. Particularly plane parts and bodies. 

Sometimes even if you've heard the idea it is a good refresher to review original stories. 

Plus an emphasis on "well that settles it!" evidence in other cases, and the importance of appreciating how standalone evidence can overwhelmingly prove what happened or at least what definitely did not happen.

This is purely speculation about motivations that were at least there. It is NOT saying those motivations actually manifested in any participation whatsoever in the tragic acts. 

But where thoughts on motivation are valuable is to understand potential persons or circles of interest. 

In ALL ways, Turning Point is the EXACT ecosystem susceptible to "this guy has 'lost his way', we must do something!!" temptations, and back room whispered conversations about solutions. 

Jax, in Sons of Anarchy, anyone?

JFK,  and the objections to his peace stance. Anyone? 

Game of Thrones' intrigue-filled battle for the Iron Throne.

Factions. 
Arguments of right person to continue the legacy. Et Cetera.

Tommy Boy, due to any number of factors gets access that literally no other human on the planet in the same situation gets.
It's not primarily about whether we should be "paranoid" about it (though there's that), but that the rule does make sense, and of ALL people to be able to circumvent the rule, it probably makes the LEAST sense for it to be someone with a top 0.01% football mind.
Parallel to what tiny fidgets and tells that most of us don't see can mean for a world-class poker player. 
Never mind when you add the level of competitiveness inherent in a QB that has delivered SEVEN Lombardi's.

Audio from interviews to back up what I've said about Kirk's change of heart. And related thoughts.

Please note that I expressed his opinion change occurred publicly only in the last few months. I'm now unsure that is correct. It might be that it because more consistent and obvious during that time period, but that he initially to a lesser degree showed the "turning point" in his views many months before that. I'm just uncertain.

A follow-up to TSOT127, with an emphasis on what Charlie Kirk's very close strategic and personal ties to Trump could mean regarding potential motivations and what the "message senders" would really mean.