Dan DeAngelis @fatguydan

@DavidLeavitt No, retard @IfindRetards

@maximumpain333 Anyone can say anything. I tend to agree, but without any significant historical references whatsoever, you're being irresponsible.

@GuntherEagleman What evidence is there that exposing fraud results in justice? @elonmusk, you want to weigh in on this?

An Open Letter to Those Who Call Border Enforcement Un-Christian I have heard from friends and clergy that Jesus would never treat undocumented immigrants the way the current administration does, and that anyone who supports these policies is immoral. Worse than the tyrants of the last century, in the language that has become routine. I didn't read that in a news story. I heard it from the pulpit, and then I heard it from those attending the Sunday service, and my family and I have no interest in returning. I'm not writing this to settle a score with friends. I'm writing it because the claim is simple, it's emotional, and it's repeated every week from pulpits, newsrooms and protest lines, and what struck me about it wasn't what it noticed. It was what it left out. So let's start where the pastor started, with Jesus. Did Jesus abolish law and order? He told the people around him to render to Caesar what belonged to Caesar (Matthew 22:21). He told a parable about a landowner who planted a vineyard, built a hedge around it, and had every right to decide who came in and on what terms (Matthew 21:33). He went after the religious leaders of his day for straining at gnats while swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24). He measured people by one thing above all, whether they applied to themselves the standard they demanded of everyone else (Matthew 7:2). I spent fifty years in the Catholic church reading those passages, and I can't turn that man into an advocate for open entry in defiance of the laws of the country you live in. What I can do is notice where his light falls. It falls on the people who call the enforcement of existing law persecution while they lock their own doors at night, hire the labor, and stay quiet for years while the numbers grow. Because the numbers didn't appear overnight. For more than a decade, interior enforcement was reduced, asylum processing was expanded in ways that invited large flows, and workplace verification stayed optional in everything but name. The result is a large population of people who entered or remained unlawfully. Some have U.S.-citizen children. Some have criminal convictions beyond the immigration offense itself. Many have simply lived here so long that removal now looks harsh — years, not months. Every one of those earlier choices made the later choices harder. That's a fact, not a talking point. Where were these voices during the expansion? Mostly quiet. Now any systematic removal is a moral atrocity. They are measuring the remedy by a standard they never applied to the cause. I want to be careful here, because both sets of costs are real. A citizen child loses a parent when that parent is removed. That's real, and anyone who waves it away isn't being honest with you. Public services, wages in certain sectors, and local safety are also affected when unlawful presence is left unaddressed at scale, and that's real too. A policy that pretends only one of those columns exists is not telling you the truth. So what's the least disruptive path still open? I believe it starts with sustained control of the border, so new entries stop resetting the problem. Then removal prioritized for people with serious criminal records. Then case-by-case discretion for long-term residents with no serious record and deep family ties. Then workplace enforcement, so the economic magnet weakens. None of that is radical. It's what ordinary sovereignty looks like after a period of neglect, and it's what the current administration has described, in substance, as what it is trying to do. It is routinely described as something else. Large parts of the press, Democratic officeholders, some church leadership and organized demonstrations have spent years equating border control and interior removals with the great evils of the last century. I understand the effect of that language. It raises the political cost of any enforcement and makes steady administration harder. What it doesn't do is make the legal and practical case go away. Countries have reasserted control of entry after periods of laxity before, and the capacity has not been abolished. Declaring the nation already lost, or calling prior policy disagreements treason, adds heat without a workable remedy. Treason has a narrow constitutional meaning: levying war against the country or aiding its enemies. Bad or self-interested governance is a different category, even when its effects are enormous. Now the question of motive, and here I'll tell you what I believe rather than what I can prove. Sustained non-enforcement, expanded temporary protections and resistance to mandatory verification all enlarge a population that, through U.S.-born children and later legalization, grows the pool of voters who have leaned toward one party. You can see that in the demographic and electoral data. It could come from ordinary political calculation, from an ideological preference for higher immigration, or from both. Ask yourself which pattern of behavior takes fewer assumptions to square with a goal of permanently changing the electorate and the country's composition. The non-enforcement pattern fits more readily. Raising enforcement, prioritizing criminals, and opposing broad legalization shrinks that mechanism rather than feeding it. That doesn't prove destructive intent in every official who supported looser rules. It does mean the charge of unique immorality, aimed at the people now trying to reverse the accumulation, is hard to sustain once the prior choices are set on the same scale. Jesus's warning about measures cuts both ways. If you apply the language of ultimate evil to the enforcement of ordinary immigration statutes, and offer no accounting of the years of non-enforcement that produced today's numbers, you are using a selective measure. The same standard would require equal attention to the employers who hired, the policies that signaled tolerance, and the costs carried by the citizens and legal residents already here. Mercy is not pretending that boundaries never counted. Mercy is enforcing them without unnecessary cruelty, and without pretending that the length of an unlawful stay rewrites the original violation. This country has not lost the ability to set the terms of membership. It let those terms be ignored for a long time, with predictable results. Restoring them will be called harsh by those who benefited from the neglect, and by those who see any distinction between legal and illegal presence as immoral in itself. That reaction doesn't decide the question. A house that stops maintaining its doors eventually stops being a home. The same is true of a country. Supporting the ordinary work of restoring the doors is not a rejection of what Jesus taught. It is a refusal to call the neglect of them an act of love.

@nicksortor What evidence is there that exposing fraud results in justice? @elonmusk , you want to weigh in on this?

@senatorduff Not too bright, are ya?

What evidence is there that exposing fraud results in justice? @elonmusk , you want to weigh in on this?

Gunther Eagleman™ @GuntherEagleman

4 days ago

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump just put a bounty on fraud, and every American can cash in. He announced the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program today. You report fraud at fraud.gov, and if it's real, you get paid. Trump's words: "If you find a billion dollars, we

2K 10K 39K 778K 3K

@ondrejslunecko Nobody said everybody. Nice try

@GuntherEagleman The legal process of doing so will be an additional few billion.

Religion is man-made doctrine of the spiritual truths. The problem is that religions are simply institutions and are subjected to the shenanigans of humans with agendas, Christianity in particular. Truth in religion is a fantasy, it is a control structure, institutional capture. When someone realizes spiritual truth through enlightenment, they are eliminated if they start becoming effective teachers, Christianity in particular. We are to determine truth ourselves, see through deception, by our choices using our own morality. I’ve written two best-seller books on truth and religion. Check my profile.

The usual suspects are again twisting Trump's hints about soulless robotic clones into code about actors wearing masks. Our readers already know the scenario Trump is describing perfectly matches Pleiadian disclosure. Cabal clones aren't just to hide arrests or deaths. They've been used for years alongside living people for convenience and control. The real person sits at home and watches their clone give speeches or perform. Just like Trump said. We're watching a black hat show with clones, not a white hat show with actors. Anons are unready.

Kab @Kabamur

a week ago

He's hinting about clones again. "I could maybe get one of those beautiful robots that they make nowadays and make him look just like me. And you wouldn't know the difference. They make them pretty good. Send him out on the trail. I could sit at home and watch him on

168 2K 7K 224K 1K

@1a2e3c4x Christians can’t find one angel to stand up for them today. Archangel Michael doesn’t stand with the blood worshipers.

La oleada de objetos de origen desconocido en el estado de Nueva Jersey continúa, sin que las autoridades de la mayor potencia tecnológica y militar de occidente haya podido evitarlo. ¿Y siguen diciendo que son drones?

T-Mobile spent five years trying to get rid of the exact spectrum Elon just called "the last critical piece" of complete phone coverage in America. This 800 MHz block is Sprint's old Nextel spectrum, the stuff that powered push-to-talk walkie-talkie phones in 2004. The DOJ forced T-Mobile to divest it as a condition of the $26 billion Sprint merger. Dish had first rights at $3.59 billion and walked away because it couldn't raise the money. T-Mobile finally offloaded it to an investment firm called Grain Management last year for $2.9 billion plus a spectrum swap. Grain's original plan was selling it to utilities for private networks. Fourteen months later, SpaceX buys the whole portfolio, and shares of the carriers who passed on it fall as much as 8% in a single afternoon. Here's why it matters so much. Starlink's satellite signal at 2 GHz can reach your phone outdoors, but it dies at the first wall. 800 MHz penetrates buildings. Most phones already have the band built in. So satellites handle the open sky, this low-band layer handles indoors, and suddenly Starlink Mobile covers everywhere a normal carrier does without the tower network. Stack the moves. $17 billion for EchoStar's 50 MHz of 2 GHz spectrum. FCC approval for 15,000 Gen2 satellites this week. Now the low-band coverage layer. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile paid $81 billion in a single auction for C-band spectrum in 2021, then spent years and tens of billions more deploying it on towers. SpaceX assembled a nationwide carrier out of a distressed-asset sale, a forced divestiture castoff, and rockets it already owns. The walkie-talkie spectrum from 2004 ended up being the piece that lets satellites replace cell towers. Nobody who touched it for twenty years saw that coming.

SpaceX @SpaceX

2 weeks ago

We announced an agreement to acquire a nationwide low-band spectrum license portfolio that will pave the way for @Starlink to become a major mobile carrier in the US. With this new spectrum and our Gen2 constellation, Starlink Mobile can ensure Americans have access to

3K 8K 67K 12.5M 5K

BREAKING: Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile shares are falling after hours as SpaceX announces a deal to buy nationwide 800 MHz spectrum to make Starlink a major U.S. mobile carrier. 📉 AT&T: -7.5% 📉 Verizon: -7.0% 📉 T-Mobile: -6.8% Low-band spectrum carries signal through walls. Elon calls it "the last critical piece of the spectrum puzzle needed for SpaceX to provide complete phone coverage in America." Starlink Mobile is coming. Made this chart with Grok @bot. One prompt. It pulled the charts, cropped them, and stitched them together in seconds. SpaceX is cooking.

THIS IS BIG! The Cancer Cells That Changed Their Minds A KAIST team just reversed cancer without killing a single cell — and the method may matter more than the result. For a century, oncology has had exactly one strategy: find the cancer and destroy it. Chemotherapy poisons it. Radiation burns it. Surgery cuts it out. Immunotherapy teaches the body to hunt it. Every weapon differs in precision, but not in philosophy. The tumor is an enemy. You win by killing. Now a team at South Korea's KAIST has proposed a heresy: *what if the tumor doesn't need to die?* In a study led by Professor Kwang-Hyun Cho of the Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, published in Advanced Science ("Control of Cellular Differentiation Trajectories for Cancer Reversion," DOI 10.1002/advs.202402132), researchers took colon cancer cells and — without poisoning, irradiating, or cutting them — turned them back into normal cells. Not dead. Not damaged. Just normal again. The tumors, grown in mice, shrank dramatically. The surrounding tissue was left intact, because there was never an attack to survive. This is early research — cell lines and animal models, no human trials, real obstacles still unsolved. But the conceptual break is the story. For the first time, cancer treatment has a second verb. Not just destroy. Also: convert. The digital twin of a cell The KAIST team's insight begins with a redefinition of what cancer is. The conventional view treats cancer as a pile of broken machinery: mutations accumulate, checkpoints fail, cells proliferate. Cho's group looked at the same evidence and saw something different — a trajectory. During oncogenesis, they observed, normal cells don't just break. They regress, sliding backward along the differentiation path they followed when they matured. A colon cell becomes, in effect, a confused stem cell: immature, proliferative, lost. If cancer is a wrong turn on a developmental road, then the treatment question changes. You don't blow up the road. You build a map and find the turn. That map is what the team calls a digital twin — a complete computational model of the gene network governing a cell's differentiation. Using data from 4,252 intestinal cells, they reconstructed a network of 522 interacting components, capturing how genes regulate one another as a cell matures or degrades. Then they did the audacious thing: they asked the simulation which levers, flipped together, would push a cancer cell back down the road toward normalcy. The answer came through a system they built called BENEIN (Boolean Network Inference and Control), which models gene interactions as logical relationships and systematically tests which interventions redirect the network's state. The simulation pointed to three master regulators — the genes MYB, HDAC2, and FOXA2 — acting together as the switch that holds the cancerous state in place. Turn all three off simultaneously, the model predicted, and the cell would stop proliferating and differentiate into something resembling a normal intestinal cell. They tested it, and it worked. In three colon cancer cell lines, suppressing MYB, HDAC2, and FOXA2 together strongly induced differentiation into normal-like cells. The cancer cells began expressing markers of healthy intestinal tissue. Proliferation collapsed — not because the cells died, but because they grew up. In animal models, tumors formed from the reprogrammed cells were dramatically smaller than controls, and under the microscope they looked far more like normal tissue. The signature achievement, and the one that would matter most to any patient reading this: there was no collateral damage. Nothing was poisoned, burned, or irradiated. The healthy tissue never came under fire, because there was no fire. 1 of 2

@GavinNewsom Get a real job, you bum.

@Kbobraa Now turn it around to be stylish… and then…

@DeepLeaksHQ I thought that already happened?! WTF?!! Should’ve known… Don’t hold your breath.