As polarization increases, our standards slip. Use your discrimination please on the “sensational” articles. As a wise man once told me, eat the grapes and spit out the seeds.
For the followers of darkness, this is the Time of Separation, of the Bifurcation of worlds, in which the evildoers exit stage right.
Those intent on building Nova Earth, a world that will work for everyone, march on. (1)
Whatever happens, I trust the Divine Mother’s Plan. I also trust and support the Global Military Alliance’s plan, which, as Matthew Ward has said, is undergirded by lovelight, the strongest force in the cosmos. (2)
I post breaking news and stories that the dark side usually wishes to cover up. In my opinion, most fact-checkers are cabal-financed and driven. I personally haven’t the time or resources to research every article here. I ask you, please, to augment my discernment with your own.
Finally, I personally am a political centrist and moderate. My core political belief is that the center holds all good things. I am not opposed to any race or religion. I am opposed to radicalism, extremism, and terrorism.
Footnotes
(1) Our world after Ascension will work for everyone (guaranteed) because of the love we’ll thereafter be immersed in (which I’ve experienced). Not a harmful thought would arise in our minds.
The context of “a world that works for everyone” originated with Werner Erhard.
(2) Matthew Ward: Without jeopardizing negotiations and actions underway, we can tell you that Donald Trump has met with extraterrestrial advisers and has been coordinating with military officers and national leaders to uproot dark ones and end their diabolical activities. These cooperative efforts are undergirded by love-light energy, the most powerful force in the cosmos. (Matthew’s Message, Dec. 3, 2024, at https://matthewbooks.com.) [My emphasis.]
THE MADDER AND MORE UNBELIEVABLE THINGS MAY BECOME … THE CLOSER YOU ARE TO THE ENDING OF THE WORLD YOU HAVE KNOWN AND THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW ONE COMING ABOUT. (The Federation of Light through Blossom Goodchild, Jan. 7, 2024, at https://goldenageofgaia.com/2024/01/07/the-federation-of-light-through-blossom-goodchild-jan-7-2023-2/.
NB: Ilhan Omar is reported to have been tribunaled and executed prior to Nov. 4, 2023:
Written:
Updated Nov. 4, 2023 Arrested, Executed, and/or Replaced
Ilhan Omar (US Representative) …….. Arrested and Executed
https://amg-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/GITMO-LIST.jpeg
(You may need to expand the spreadsheet)
(https://tinyurl.com/mwnfy4ed)
(https://tinyurl.com/y8b8takk)
(https://tinyurl.com/fbf3nx7z)
But, regarding Bibi Netanyahu, below, cf.:
Written:
Updated November 4, 2023. Arrested, Executed and Replaced List
Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) …. Arrested and Executed
https://amg-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/GITMO-LIST.jpeg
(https://tinyurl.com/47vdnjz5)
🚨 BREAKING: Secretary RFK Jr. has DECERTIFIED Kentucky’s organ procurement organization Network for Hope after they IGNORED signs of life from SEVERAL patients scheduled for organ donations
This is BEYOND evil. People should be LOCKED UP over this.
Despite signs of life, the… pic.twitter.com/fcdTTrAD33
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 5, 2026
COURT-MARTIAL EXPOSED: CONTEMPT AND CONSEQUENCE – THE CASE FOR COURT-MARTIALING INSUBORDINATE FLAG OFFICERS
Ezra A. Cohen, Telegram, Aug. 9, 2026
COURT-MARTIAL: Retired flag officers who denounce the President and Secretary of Defense – let alone brand them as a threat to democracy, violate the UCMJ, according to this argument. SecDef Hegseth must hold them accountable.
Amuse Report: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the bedrock of military discipline and civilian control. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth now faces a defining question: whether retired senior officers who publicly attack civilian leadership should face consequences under military law.
The case centers on Articles 88 and 133 of the UCMJ. Article 88 prohibits commissioned officers from using “contemptuous words” against the President, while Article 133 covers conduct unbecoming an officer. Supporters of enforcement argue that certain retired generals and admirals crossed these lines through repeated public attacks against President Trump and members of his administration.
Retired officers are not necessarily treated exactly like ordinary private citizens under military law. Certain retirees remain subject to UCMJ jurisdiction, although applying those provisions to political speech raises significant constitutional and First Amendment questions.
Among the most prominent examples is retired General James Mattis, who in 2020 accused Trump of deliberately dividing the country. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said he was “sickened” by events surrounding the administration’s response to protests, while Admiral William McRaven accused Trump of damaging the country.
Other senior military figures also publicly criticized Trump. General John Allen warned about American democracy, General Martin Dempsey opposed potential domestic troop deployments, Colin Powell accused Trump of lying and abandoning constitutional principles, Stanley McChrystal called him immoral and dishonest, and John Kelly questioned his character.
Supporters of disciplinary action argue these statements go beyond ordinary policy disagreements. Because they come from former senior commanders, they potentially carry influence within the armed forces and can undermine confidence in civilian leadership.
Similar controversy has surrounded criticism of Secretary Pete Hegseth, with former military leaders questioning his qualifications, judgment, policies, and leadership of the Pentagon.
The broader issue is precedent. The military depends on hierarchy, discipline, and civilian authority. Advocates of enforcement argue that allowing senior officers, active or retired – to openly attack civilian leadership without consequence risks normalizing political defiance throughout the ranks.
Opponents strongly disagree, arguing that court-martialing retired officers for political speech could violate First Amendment protections and dangerously restrict the ability of former military leaders to speak as private citizens.
That creates the central question: where does protected political criticism end and punishable military contempt begin?
Supporters of enforcement maintain that senior rank should not provide immunity from military standards. For Secretary Hegseth and the Trump administration, the dispute therefore goes beyond individual generals, it concerns the boundaries between political speech, military discipline, and civilian control.
Whether prosecutions would ultimately survive constitutional scrutiny remains disputed. But the underlying debate is clear: how far can retired military leaders go in attacking elected civilian leadership while remaining subject to military law?