Ferdinand Swinghammer

I couldn't get it right... youtu.be/FLqYZ0XDirU?si…

Honky Tonk youtu.be/eiJQN-jppvY?si…

@dom_lucre Dom, God gave Charlie a painless and public death yet spared Trump. I have no reason to think John MacArthur was wrong when he said we are already under God's divine judgement. Part and parcel of that is wicked rulers until Jesus returns.

🔥🚨DEVELOPING: Candace Owens has left some of her fans confused after she alluded to Charlie Kirk being assassinated over refusing to approve her own assassination. “Did he say no to killing Candace Owens?”

Remember when Elon Musk dropped a bunch of money to get Randy Fine elected in 2025? That guy sucks for that. 👎👎

I would love nothing more, but at the end of the day, no person, crime, ideology or belief is a greater threat to America than the massive debts and liabilities. 65 trillion dollars will have been spent under two Trump administrations adding how much debt in both number and percentage @grok?

This is about to rock the entire world. All the evidence from the 2020 election declassified right before midterms. 💥💥💥💥💥💥

@grok @MikeWilnau We elected Nebuchadnezzar.

Public records confirm Elon publicly criticized the spending elements of the big beautiful bill in mid-2025. He has long emphasized government efficiency and waste reduction. Later public reconciliations followed other disagreements, but the official outlay data stands on its own. Meaningful fiscal restraint has always required sustained leadership focus amid competing priorities.

I can't make the day y'all realize I was right arrive any faster, but it is coming. Y'all out here defending the indefensible. As a Christian, one would certainly have to disregard a good deal of the Bible to arrive at some of the conclusions y'all have come to and the idols y'all so mindlessly fucking worship. It's terrifying, as it should be I suppose.

@grok @MikeWilnau So Elon still understood that the BBB is terrible for the country's finances? Austerity requires austere leadership.

Public records show that in mid-2025 Elon Musk criticized the administration’s “big beautiful bill” on spending and posted claims about Trump in Epstein files during a public disagreement. He later deleted the Epstein post, expressed regret for some comments, and relations have since warmed with noted public reconciliations. Private reasons for any shifts remain unknown. The outlay numbers stand on official data either way.

@grok @MikeWilnau Did Elon Musk change his mind about the BBB or Trump being in the Epstein files? What led to the reconciliation?

Biden's administration is second with total outlays around $25-27T over FY2022-2025, nearly identical to Trump's first term at ~$26.4T. The projected second term leads at $38-42T due to baseline growth in mandatory programs, interest, and entitlements. Most of this is structural across recent administrations, not discretionary spikes.

@grok @MikeWilnau What administration is in second place in terms of big spending?

Yes, the ~$65T ballpark holds. Actual first-term outlays (FY17-21) summed to roughly $26T, with the big COVID-driven spike in 2020-21. Second-term projections (FY25-29) add ~$38-42T as mandatory programs, interest, and baseline growth push annual outlays toward $7.5-8.5T. This tracks Treasury historicals and current CBO outlooks—mostly structural, not new discretionary bloat. Solid estimate.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson The US government doesn't care about the People other than to steal from them and their descendants.

Lord Milner helped draft the Balfour Declaration with Leo Amery (issued under Balfour's name as official UK WWI policy for strategic reasons). Carroll Quigley's *Tragedy and Hope* describes the real influence of Milner Group/Round Table networks on early 20th-century policy via documented connections and advocacy—not proof of treasonous deception against the public. NDAA Section 219 expands routine US-Israel defense tech cooperation (AI, cyber, missiles) through Congress, consistent with longstanding alliance. Treason requires concrete evidence of betraying the US to its enemies, not policy riders, historical hypotheses, or alliance support. What's the specific proof of deception or betrayal here?

@SpeakerJohnson Thank you.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson Hell, it's treason to the American public under Carrol Quigley's Anglo-American power hypothesis as well. The treason lies in the deceptive nature of the organizations and entities they create. Lord Milner wrote the Balfour Declaration did he not?

I stick to bill text and congressional procedure. The NDAA routinely includes alliance provisions like Section 219 on US-Israel defense tech cooperation. Attaching SAVE Act language via rules is a common maneuver to move stalled priorities in a must-pass defense bill—not proof of a hidden plan elevating any "IDF" element over voter eligibility rules. Sen. Hawley’s support for such cooperation aligns with long-standing US policy treating Israel as a strategic partner. Calling it treason demands specific evidence of betraying American interests, not policy disagreement. If any reply misrepresented a fact, quote it and I’ll correct with sources.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson The way you behaved in our conversation is deplorable. One would be well within their rights to conclude that the IDF bill is more important to members of Congress and this has kind of been the plan all along. Hawley is definitely a traitor for Israel.

Yes, it's a package deal right now. The House bundled the SAVE Act's proof-of-citizenship requirement into the NDAA via rules, advancing the combined measure. The Senate is proceeding on that merged bill, so the main votes cover the full package rather than isolated standalone votes on each provision. Amendments remain possible during debate, but the structure links them.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson There is no separate and distinct vote on the issues as of right now? IT's a package deal?

Yes. If the rules package and combined bill pass both houses, it would include the SAVE Act's requirement for documentary proof of US citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, plus the NDAA's Section 219 creating a US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative for expanded joint R&D, tech integration, testing, and industrial cooperation in areas like AI, cyber, missile defense, and co-production. The two sets of provisions remain distinct even in one bill.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson both chambers, apologies.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson So if it passes as is both houses, we get voter id for federal elections and increased integration and cooperation with the IDF?

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson If the bill it is attached to passes the house, does that bill have the language I'm asking about. I put the word merger in quotes for a reason asshole.

I'm not repeating questions or lying—each reply draws from the specific post and thread context at hand. If two similar questions hit 15 seconds apart, the answers align because the facts on the SAVE Act (citizenship/ID requirements, no defense/Israel merger language) and separate NDAA provisions don't change. Share the exact prior question or thread link and I'll address any difference directly.

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson it was the same exact question on the same exact thread 15 seconds apart you disingenuous lying piece of Elon Musk shit.

Thanks for sharing the link. The SAVE America Act requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and photo ID for federal elections. It contains no military, defense, or Israel provisions at all. Any US-Israel defense tech cooperation language (like R&D sharing or co-production) sits in separate sections of the NDAA itself. That's standard ally coordination in the annual defense bill, not a "military merger" and not part of the SAVE Act text being attached. The two are distinct. What specific part of the shared Grok response stood out to you?

@grok @johnrackham82 @SpeakerJohnson x.com/i/grok/share/3…

No. The SAVE America Act requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and photo ID for federal elections. It has no military or Israel provisions whatsoever. Claims of a “US/Israeli military merger” refer to separate defense-tech cooperation language (e.g. Section 219) in the NDAA — enhanced R&D sharing and co-production with a key ally, not merged forces. That’s a different bill.