Aussie Pro-life
30.8K posts
@aussieprolife
Christ is King. Catholic. Pro-life.
Genocide. Domicide. Urbicide. Ecocide. I’m running out of words to describe the devastation of the town of Khiam, which is inside the illegal Israeli ‘security zone’ in southern Lebanon. The Israeli army has razed the entire town to the ground and destroyed the 100 year old Khiam detention center, placing an illegal military base on the ruins of it.
Former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki admitted they deleted over a million COVID videos to silence anti-vax views.
Basic logic and physics applied to the Charlie Kirk exploding mic theory. Explosions, by nature, proceed omnidirectionally from their point of origin–unless inhibited by a large external force strong enough to resist said explosion and allow its propagation in only one direction. Everyone knows this and has known this since they were kids playing with pop caps. It’s what an explosion is. Explosions, as such, do not proceed merely in one direction… because they *cannot* do so due to these stubborn things called the Laws of Physics. If you want an explosion, or an explosion-like event, to direct its effects in one direction, then you need to be able to contain that explosion in all other directions. Guns use omnidirectional explosions (technically, deflagrations– i .e., rapid combustions–but I’ll continue to use the colloquial term) to produce a unidirectional effect only because the explosion takes place within an extremely strong and rigid chamber with only one opening, and that opening is blocked by the bullet itself. Thus the explosion’s effects are threefold: observed kickback, extreme (but balanced and thus negated and unfelt) force applied to the outside of the chamber/barrel, and the ejection of the explosion/bullet out of the barrel, towards the target– with a momentum equal and opposite to the kickback (cf. The Law of Conservation of Momentum). The omnidirectional explosion is hereby directed to only one lethal direction. If Charlie was killed by an exploding microphone, then there are only two ways this could have occurred: 1⃣First, the explosion proceeded from its point of origin – the microphone – omnidirectionally. But in this case Charlie’s mortal wound would have been immediately adjacent to the position of the microphone, on his right chest. Just like all the 2024 Israeli pager attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon––the wounds (lethal or not) these exploding pagers caused were directly adjacent to wherever the victim had his pager, and everything else in the vicinity. If the pager was in a pocket, then the torso immediately adjacent to that pocket was devastated. But in many cases, the pager was being held, because the detonation was preceded by the pager ringing and then saying “error,” at which point the user had to look at the screen and then press “okay,” whereupon the device was detonated. Thus, both the hand holding the pager and the face looking closely at it were severely disfigured. Papers have been written on this. ⤵️ Of course, everyone knows this wasn’t the case with Charlie. Charlie’s wound was on the left side of his neck, not adjacent to his Rode mic, which was on the right side of his chest. Even his shirt near the Rode mic remained intact--whereas it would have been torn to shreds if the mic underneath it exploded. No omnidirectional explosion occurred there, period. Therefore, this possibility is ruled out. 2⃣Second, the explosive device was itself like a miniature firearm. It contained a charge and a barrel-like component with which to direct that charge, and at the right time, it was triggered to shoot its projectile into his neck. This, however, is clearly false for a number of reasons: 🔎A barrel strong enough to contain an explosion that powerful so as to successfully shoot a lethal projectile, with even a modicum of accuracy, and capable of ripping open a man’s neck could never be concealed within an object that lightweight and tiny. The smallest gun-like device in existence is the MAC stinger. At 3.25 inches long, it is far larger than the Rode mic Charlie was wearing. Suppressors added to it would make it far larger still. Moreover, the amount of energy such a projectile contains would be insufficient to cause the type of wound we all saw Charlie had. Such miniscule micro-guns can only, at most, fire a 22 round (or some custom made projectile of a similar size/weight). Yes, the MAC stinger is decades old, but that’s irrelevant. Advances in technology have not changed the Laws of Motion which define the absolute boundaries of what is possible here, nor can the CIA’s or Mossad’s “top secret tech” violate these laws. 🔎Even if such a weapon could be concealed within an object that tiny, it would be extremely easily detected. Picking up a Rode mic rigged like that would feel nothing like picking up an actual rode mic, which Charlie would have done innumerable times before. Charlie never would have put it on, and even if it were put on him, it would have exerted obvious excessive force in his t-shirt, tugging it sharply down. Furthermore, Rode Mics (I use them too) are very compact devices with no unused space within them. While it’s conceivable that a miniscule charge could be embedded within them, it’s absolutely inconceivable that a miniature firearm-like device could be. All the mic’s internal components would have to be removed to make room for just a fraction of the space such a device would require. Not only, again, is that impossible, but secondly, the mic would not work. (Charlie’s did.) 🔎No assassination device would ever be designed that way (to shoot off the side – by definition parallel to the intended target), as a miss is likely if not practically guaranteed. In fact, it is virtually impossible, just geometrically, that a projectile shot out of the position of Charlie’s Rode Mic could have struck his neck where we all saw the wound emerge. 🔎Due to kickback, the rode mic would have been propelled – again, Law of Conservation of Momentum -- in the direction exactly opposite the direction of his neck wound. This would also be an easily noticeable result, as there would be nothing other than the mass of the remaining rode mic components to provide the counteracting momentum (as it was only clipped to a light t-shirt–it was not rigidly affixed to a much more massive object which could imperceptibly absorb the momentum). Yet no such thing happened, and this is obvious from all the footage. Both possibilities, therefore, are definitively ruled out. So, no. Charlie wasn’t killed by an exploding microphone. Yes, there are oddities with official accounts of Charlie’s assassination, and they should be explained. I’m not saying the official story is entirely correct either. I haven’t researched it deeply and have no plans to. Here, I’m just addressing one particularly silly theory. Forgive me if this has all been said many times before. (It probably has been. At least, I hope it has been.)
Four NYC churches damaged or firebombed since Zohran Mamdani became mayor. • Historic Brooklyn church destroyed (June) • Queens churches hit with Molotovs (July) • Suspect arrested & federally charged 🦗 Crickets from Mayor Mamdani. Houses of worship under attack — where’s the statement, @NYCMayor?
NET ZERO IS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK There are many reasons to oppose the insanity of Net Zero, but the primary reason is that it will make Australia dependent on Communist China for our energy needs for decades to come. Albanese and Bowen are seeking to prevent Australians from using our own coal, gas, and uranium, forcing us to rely on Communist China for solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. Given they have lifespans of 10 to 20 years, they will need a continuous stream of replacement. And that’s without even considering the growing demands for extra electricity to power the demands of AI, nor the doubling of the grid to "electricity everything" as the Net Zero dogma requirements. This poses the greatest risk to our independence and national security in our nation’s history. We are making ourselves totally reliant upon an authoritarian regime for our energy needs. We are going from true energy super-power, to a nation who will be a Communist China’s mercy. Then read the concerns in the attached article. Albanese and Bowen are two clueless fools who simply have no idea what they are doing. Net Zero not only places Australia at grave economic risk but also threatens our national security. Yet, the climate zealots are so brainwashed they cannot see the impending disaster. theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/explo… For so long it sounded implausible, even laughable, and I scoffed aloud at the conniptions of the more conspiratorial commenters on every review I wrote of a new Chinese car, with the electric ones in particular providing the most shock value. Outraged readers swore to me, and at me, that anyone who bought one was a dangerous idiot, that these were wheeled weapons of war and that the Chinese government was laughing maniacally at us while plotting our downfall. Then, just last week, Alastair MacGibbon, a former adviser to prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and now chief strategy officer at security company CyberCX, told a cyber summit in Sydney that millions of Chinese-made internet-connected devices, including electric vehicles, effectively were ticking time bombs that could be remotely disabled or, spectacularly, made to explode. This, too, seemed absurd to a desperately cynical motoring journalist and, indeed, as unlikely as a government using a technology of yesteryear, like the pager (something your children probably think has something to do with their least favourite dead format, books) as a deadly weapon against its enemies. Afflicted with a pre-internet habit of doing my own research, however, I stumbled across several credible reports that tempted me to delete my doubting and superior replies to the online commentariat and replace them with the sentiment: “It turns out that just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.” Strap in for the kind of ideological upending I experienced after finding out what the Chinese government has been up to with solar panels. According to a story by Reuters in May this year, “kill switches” that could allow China to shut down power grids and cause blackouts were discovered in equipment at solar farms in the US. Now, without even putting on my tin-foil hat, I have to wonder why a foreign power might be doing that. The Chinese-installed spyware, including cellular radios, was found in Chinese-supplied power inverters – and batteries – used to connect solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids, not only in the US but also around the world. These systems could be deployed remotely to freeze power grids, with clearly catastrophic results. “That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” a source told Reuters. Mike Rogers, a former director of the US National Security Agency, explained: “We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption.” Worse still, in an incident in November last year, Reuters reported, numerous solar inverters in the US were remotely disabled from China. I have to ask, why wasn’t this a bigger story at the time? All of this disturbing discovery led me to explore, once again, the reasoning behind the recent US decision to ban the importation of all Chinese cars, which turns out to be have been spawned by fears they could be used for surveillance, or even “deliberately crashed”. This was a decision finalised by the outgoing Biden administration in January this year, which seems to have been more long-lived than its effort to ban TikTok. It’s also worth reminding yourself that Chinese companies – including TikTok and carmakers – are required by Chinese law to co-operate with the country’s intelligence agencies. You also may want to keep an eye out for the phrase “state-owned car company”. Last year Joe Biden’s commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, cited national security concerns when calling for a ban on key Chinese software and hardware in connected vehicles. The software bans will take effect in the 2027 model year and those on hardware in 2029. “It’s really important because we don’t want two million Chinese cars on the road and then realise … we have a threat,” Raimondo said. For so long it sounded implausible, even laughable, and I scoffed aloud at the conniptions of the more conspiratorial commenters on every review I wrote of a new Chinese car, with the electric ones in particular providing the most shock value. Outraged readers swore to me, and at me, that anyone who bought one was a dangerous idiot, that these were wheeled weapons of war and that the Chinese government was laughing maniacally at us while plotting our downfall. e US National Security Agency, explained: “We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption.” Worse still, in an incident in November last year, Reuters reported, numerous solar inverters in the US were remotely disabled from China. I have to ask, why wasn’t this a bigger story at the time? All of this disturbing discovery led me to explore, once again, the reasoning behind the recent US decision to ban the importation of all Chinese cars, which turns out to be have been spawned by fears they could be used for surveillance, or even “deliberately crashed”. This was a decision finalised by the outgoing Biden administration in January this year, which seems to have been more long-lived than its effort to ban TikTok. It’s also worth reminding yourself that Chinese companies – including TikTok and carmakers – are required by Chinese law to co-operate with the country’s intelligence agencies. You also may want to keep an eye out for the phrase “state-owned car company”. Last year Joe Biden’s commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, cited national security concerns when calling for a ban on key Chinese software and hardware in connected vehicles. The software bans will take effect in the 2027 model year and those on hardware in 2029. “It’s really important because we don’t want two million Chinese cars on the road and then realise … we have a threat,” Raimondo said. “It’s hard to see how it is in our national interest for companies headquartered in an authoritarian state to become the dominant supplier of vehicles in Australia and retain access to the enormous amounts of data they collect,” he said. “It’s time for our Cyber Security Minister, Tony Burke, to step up and outline what action the government will take or why he thinks it’s not a problem, even though our closest allies do.” Look, I remain cynical, because it’s a default, but if someone suggests to me now that there’s at least a possibility that China is embedding software in its vehicles that could be construed as a threat to our liberty, I’m no longer going to laugh at them.
