I don't see how this bastardly imbecile and the floozy whore can be legally sworn in! This written indictment of the crime family is long, but it is comprehensive and leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the entire Biden clan. I have already written to my two senators asking them where the hell are they when our president needs them at his side!

bookmarked...

Will just be ignored.

The new blue dress is Hunters Tax Returns.

Same old, same old. Your rights and freedom are done. Only way out is death. I plan on at least three sacrifices for my life. Everyone will know when.

Dead Culture Watch: Your rights and freedom are done. Only way out is death. I plan on at least three sacrifices for my life. Everyone will know when. Explaining “what and why” is more important than “when.” A threat is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person. In the United States, federal law criminalizes certain true threats transmitted via the U.S. mail or in interstate commerce. It also criminalizes threatening the government officials of the United States. Some U.S. states criminalize cyberbullying. Threats of bodily harm are called assault.' A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three justifications: preventing fear, preventing the disruption that follows from that fear, and diminishing the likelihood that the threatened violence will occur. There is some concern that even satirical speech could be regarded as a "true threat" due to concern over terrorism. The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wide open" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." Source. Since I am LMAO at your “threat” – I therefore recognize that "uninhibited, robust, and wide open" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks. “ Consequently, I see what you said as more of "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition" than a "true threat." Or – Did you “really” mean it to be a “true threat” …

I plan on at least three sacrifices for my life. Everyone will know when.

I plan to pray to Jobu and sacrifice three KFC chickens so I can hit a curveball.