This is the way.
Make the punishment for pedophilia much more extreme.
In fact, why shouldn't we have a death penalty put in place for pedophiles?
Name one reason why we shouldn't make the law more extreme to protect our children...

https://twitter.com/pafstfrgz/status/1783135341077053505?t=eNhMnVP7-M1RbJQD7iJQmA&s=19

This girl at Columbia is mad that the University's administration wants to crack down on them - she says its as if they don't know that what they are doing is what they were taught.

It's like Dr. Frankenstein not believing the monster would walk, kek

https://teleg.eu/realKarliBonne/240133

Of course - it's like goundhog day

https://teleg.eu/realjust_human/16038

Clarification - communist senator Pete Ricketts

I'm going to start putting a C behind every uniparty politician from now on

"Pete Ricketts argues that TikTok should be banned because “pro-Palestine” videos have more views “than the top 10 U.S. news websites combined."

https://teleg.eu/PepeDeluxed/59397

DHS is willing to deport student protestors that don't follow the narrative, but they are not willing to deport criminals who cross the border illegally.

Surprised?

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Wednesday confirmed that foreign students could potentially face deportation if they are suspended from their courses while on a student visa"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-official-reveals-what-could-happen-foreign-students-suspended-anti-israel-protests-rage

I published my long post from yesterday as an article on X. Please like and share!

The Next Generation of Warfare

https://twitter.com/Nevstv/status/1783332429148602670

Important morning grooming routine... GM frens, have a wonderful Thursday 🦦🐸

Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction and 23 year sentence has been overturned. He still will remain in prison based on another case where he was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

Here's what's interesting - Weinstein's attorney argued that his character was put on trial instead of the evidence.

I heard rumblings that this is based on a technicality that the judge in the case made a mistake and that the appellate court may have ordered a new trial - more to come.

https://people.com/harvey-weinstein-2020-rape-conviction-new-york-overturned-8600155

https://apnews.com/article/weinstein-appeal-rape-new-york-metoo-31e8c864564e7553fd5aa85a9d1e3725

Reminder - Trump's immunity case argued today at the Supreme Court, It will be interesting to hear what questions the justices ask.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/trump-s-immunity-case-live-supreme-court-to-hear-arguments/ar-AA1nEq2j

This video contains a short summary of some of the questions from the justices today.

At 4:47 - Court of appeals decision they are reviewing stated "A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws"

Chief Justice Roberts says that concerns him and gives a translation: "a former president can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted"

Anyone think that SCOTUS will say the president does not have immunity? I'm thinking yes - and that might be a good thing. Hear me out.

Trump will go through his trials and any that he might not prevail in would be overturned on appeal because they are all so ridiculous - but then it opens the door to investigate real crimes from some of our former presidents and might prevent shenanigans in the future. Part of draining the swamp. The left keeps saying "nobody is above the law" - they'll have to live with that.

At the same time, it's a very delicate balancing act, because we can't have presidents prosecuting their political opponents every four years either.

If they agree to absolute immunity instead of a very narrow form, then any current or future president would be able to get away with crimes. If they don't agree to any immunity then Biden (and future administrations) will be like the wild west, prosecuting every former president they don't agree with.

Perhaps they'll keep the scope very very narrow. It will be interesting to see when the ruling comes down in June.

This is the way - good for him 🔥 local action = national impact

https://teleg.eu/realKarliBonne/240258

Bill Maher catches amnesia while actually trying to defend Jeffrey Epstein's buddy, Woody Allen and it doesn't go well.
"I respect the artist and the man. I don't think he committed that crime. All these actors who won't work with him anymore. What a bunch of pu**ies. It's a very improbable crime that they are accusing him of. First of all, I just flat out believe him. I believe a 57 year old man didn't suddenly become a child molester in the middle of a divorce proceeding in a house full of adults in broad daylight...

"Listen, I don't know but there was some pretty sketchy things and damning things in the documentary that certainly raised legitimate questions. He had a relationship with a high school student. Do you remember? Did you watch the documentary?"
Woody Allen married his step daughter, frequently hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and his movies had plots where the main character, Woody, was dating a literal under age child. But I'm sure it's nothing.
Why is Bill Maher trying to defend Woody Allen when anyone with eyes can see he is clearly a predator?
X

This is so odd considering he recently called out Hollywood pedos saying it's a small world after all. I guess it's a small world unless your buddies are in it.

https://teleg.eu/realKarliBonne/239335

Hey frens, we're doing meme wars this Saturday morning.

Submit your favorite memes of the last week or so and we'll have some fun rating them 🙌🏻

We rate on 1) truth/accuracy, 2) how funny it is; and 3) how informative it is (red-pilling factor)

GM frens, happy Friday!!!

Aw, poor Schiffty Schiff 🍉😂
He had to attend a dinner without his suit because his luggage was stolen in San Francisco

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/thieves-snatch-rep-adam-schiff-s-luggage-in-s-f-he-gives-dinner-speech-without-a-suit/ar-AA1nGMqu#

MSM spin as usual, yet they think that Trump team had a good day in court.

"The resulting decision from the court will likely mean a narrowing of the Jan. 6 case against Trump based on whatever rule the majority devises for what official acts are fair game for prosecution."

I agree that the likely result will be a narrowing of the case. Otherwise the end result could have huge ramifications for the country.

We're writing a rule for the ages,"Justice Neil Gorsuch said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed: "This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-has-good-day-arguing-immunity-but-that-doesnt-nix-jan-6-prosecution-analysis/ar-AA1nFPxh