Race, Identity, and Rebuilding Community

Why Good Intentions Aren’t Enough—and Listening Matters

Conversations about race are rarely easy. They can be uncomfortable, awkward, emotional, and sometimes frustrating for everyone involved. But discomfort alone is not a reason to avoid them. In fact, some of the most important conversations happen precisely bec…

Read more

Our primary focus was Delaney Hall, an immigration detention facility near Newark, New Jersey, that has become the center of growing protests and public scrutiny. Reports of poor conditions, restricted visitation, hunger strikes, and allegations of abuse have drawn national attention. Yet one question kept surfacing throughout the discussion: if these are the facilities we can see, what is happening in the facilities we cannot?

The conversation highlighted an important reality. Delaney Hall is receiving attention because it sits in a politically active state with strong local opposition and significant media coverage. Across the country, however, detention facilities in rural areas often operate with far less public visibility. While activists and community organizations continue to monitor conditions and advocate for detainees, many of these stories never make national headlines.

The broader issue raised during the episode was not simply immigration policy. It was transparency. When government agencies restrict access, limit oversight, or dismiss concerns without addressing them, public trust erodes. Citizens naturally begin to question official narratives, particularly when those narratives conflict with eyewitness accounts and documented reports.

That theme carried into a discussion about the economy.

Many Americans are being told that economic conditions are strong, yet their daily experiences often tell a different story. Rising healthcare costs, expensive housing, vehicle repairs, and everyday necessities continue to strain household budgets. The gap between economic statistics and lived reality has become a growing source of frustration.

One idea that resonated throughout the conversation was Terry Pratchett’s famous “Boots Theory” of economics: being poor is expensive. People with resources can afford quality products, preventative care, and long-term investments that save money over time. Those without resources are often forced into more expensive choices simply because they cannot afford the cheaper option upfront. Whether discussing medical treatment, car repairs, or housing maintenance, the principle remains the same.

Both topics—detention centers and economic insecurity—ultimately converged on a common concern: trust.

Trust is difficult to build and easy to lose. When public officials make claims that people can easily disprove through their own experiences, skepticism grows. When institutions appear unwilling to provide transparency, confidence weakens further. The result is a public increasingly uncertain about what information to believe and whom to hold accountable.

As the episode concluded, the discussion shifted from politics to principle. Regardless of party affiliation, a society is ultimately judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people and how honestly it communicates with its citizens. Whether examining detention facilities, economic policy, or government accountability, the same question remains:

Can democratic institutions maintain legitimacy without transparency?

That is a question worth asking, and one that will likely continue to shape political conversations for years to come.

Who gets remembered in America — and who gets erased?

This episode explored that tension through two seemingly separate conversations: the origins of Memorial Day and the atmosphere of political violence, mistrust, and authoritarian influence shaping modern America. The connection between them is not accidental. Both are fundamentally about power over memory.

From Decoration Day to Memorial Day

Before it became Memorial Day, the holiday was known as “Decoration Day,” born from the wreckage of the Civil War. In the years immediately following the conflict, communities across the country gathered to decorate the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers and remembrance.

But one of the earliest and most significant acts of remembrance came not from politicians or generals — it came from newly freed Black Americans.

Less than a month after the Civil War ended, freed Black residents in Charleston, South Carolina, organized to properly bury Union soldiers who had died in a Confederate prison camp. These men had fought, in part, for the destruction of slavery itself. The ceremony became an act of both mourning and political declaration: the dead would be honored, and the meaning of the war would not be surrendered to Confederate mythology.

That history matters because Memorial Day was not originally neutral. It emerged from the moral aftermath of slavery and civil war. Remembering the Union dead was inseparable from remembering what they died fighting against.

Yet over time, much of that context was softened, stripped away, or forgotten entirely. The uncomfortable truth — that Black Americans helped establish one of the nation’s most sacred civic traditions — faded from mainstream memory.

And when a country hides the truth about its own past, mistrust grows.

Gunshots in DC

The second half of our discussion turned toward the present: political instability, authoritarian influence, and the normalization of violence in public life.

The atmosphere in Washington increasingly feels shaped by spectacle, intimidation, and confusion. Gunshots, threats, conspiracies, and disinformation become background noise instead of national alarms. We talked about how modern political figures cultivate loyalty through fear, grievance, and constant destabilization.

Part of that conversation centered on Vladimir Putin’s influence on authoritarian politics worldwide, including his perceived relationship with Donald Trump. Whether viewed as ideological alignment, political admiration, or strategic influence, the dynamic reflects a broader pattern: strongman politics thrives when public trust collapses.

We also referenced the 1999 Ryazan incident in Russia, long associated with suspicions surrounding the apartment bombings that helped consolidate Putin’s rise to power. Regardless of what conclusions people draw from that history, the larger lesson remains important: fear can be weaponized to justify expanded power, increased secrecy, and the erosion of democratic norms.

When citizens no longer trust institutions — or when institutions themselves obscure truth — conspiracy fills the vacuum.

The Throughline: Erasure Breeds Distrust

The connective tissue between these conversations is simple:

Hiding history creates mistrust.

When Black contributions to American history are erased, minimized, or rewritten, people learn that official narratives are selective. When governments conceal information or manipulate public fear, citizens begin doubting everything. The result is a society increasingly unable to distinguish between truth, myth, propaganda, and performance.

Memory matters because democracy depends on a shared understanding of reality.

If we cannot honestly acknowledge who built traditions, who fought for freedom, who abused power, or who manipulated fear, then public trust inevitably collapses.

Call to Action: Self-Education

One of the most powerful responses to misinformation and historical erasure is independent learning. Not isolated conspiracy thinking, but genuine civic education rooted in primary sources, investigative journalism, and historical research.

Start by asking harder questions. Read beyond headlines. Examine whose voices are missing from official stories.

Resources like Deportation Data Project help make hidden systems visible and encourage deeper engagement with how policy affects real people.

Memorial Day should be more than remembrance without context. It should challenge us to ask what kind of country we become when memory itself becomes contested terrain.

Summary above was created with the help of ChatGPT.

References:

https://bookshop.org/p/books/caste-the-origins-of-our-discontents-isabel-wilkerson/ba07006a708c5070

A lot of what we talk about centers around Donald Trump, political corruption, and what we feel is a huge double standard. We keep coming back to the idea that peo…

Read more

In this episode, we explored how immigration policy, mass incarceration, systemic racism, economic inequality, and political power are deeply interconnected. What began as a conversation about immigration detention quickly expanded into a broader discussion about the systems that shape who is protected, who is punished, and who profits from both.

Immigration Enforcement and Racial Politics

We began by discussing the growing frustration many people feel over immigration enforcement policies, voting rights issues, and what we see as coordinated attacks on Black and brown communities. We argued that immigration crackdowns, voter suppression efforts, and mass incarceration are not isolated issues, but part of a larger system tied to racial hierarchy and economic exploitation.

We also talked about how political rhetoric around “legal votes” and “illegal immigrants” often functions as coded racial messaging. These narratives, we argued, are designed to create fear while justifying increasingly aggressive enforcement policies.

The conversation touched on themes found in To Kill a Mockingbird and Go Set a Watchman, particularly the idea that someone can claim compassion toward marginalized people while still denying them equality, power, or autonomy.

The Expansion of ICE Detention Facilities

A major focus of our discussion was the rapid growth of ICE detention infrastructure across the country, particularly in Texas and other conservative states.

We discussed how new detention centers are often marketed to rural communities as economic opportunities that bring jobs and government contracts. But we questioned why massive, permanent detention facilities are being built if the official goal is simply deportation.

If people are supposedly being processed and removed quickly, why build facilities capable of housing tens of thousands long term?

That question led us into a larger discussion about detention, incarceration, and labor.

Prison Labor and the 13th Amendment

We spent significant time discussing the prison-industrial complex and the exception clause in the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery “except as punishment for a crime.”

We argued that this loophole has allowed prison labor systems to evolve into a modern form of slavery. Historically, Black and brown communities have been disproportionately targeted by policing and incarceration policies, creating a system where marginalized populations become economically valuable once imprisoned.

We connected this directly to concerns about immigration detention and the possibility that detention systems could increasingly rely on inmate labor under legal frameworks that already exist.

The broader concern was not simply incarceration itself, but the economic incentives surrounding it.

The War on Drugs and Unequal Treatment

Another major theme was the long-term impact of the War on Drugs.

We discussed how punitive drug policies disproportionately affected Black and brown communities for decades, often resulting in incarceration instead of treatment. At the same time, addiction treatment systems remained underdeveloped because punishment was prioritized over rehabilitation.

We contrasted that history with the opioid epidemic, which affected many white rural communities and led to broader public conversations about healthcare, addiction recovery, and treatment options.

We also touched on racial disparities in healthcare itself, including differences in pain treatment and medical access.

Immigration Policy and Criminalization

We also examined how immigration enforcement increasingly criminalizes administrative violations such as overstayed visas or minor infractions.

We argued that many detained immigrants have committed no violent crimes and that families are being swept into detention systems despite attempting to follow legal processes.

The concern raised throughout the conversation was that changing administrative rules can rapidly transform lawful residents into “criminals” through policy shifts rather than actual harmful behavior.

Militarization, Punishment, and Public Priorities

From there, we broadened the discussion into a larger critique of how governments allocate resources.

We argued that enormous amounts of money are consistently directed toward militarization, policing, surveillance, incarceration, and punishment systems while healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social services remain underfunded.

The argument was simple: every dollar spent building systems of punishment is a dollar not spent building systems that improve quality of life.

We questioned whether decades of prioritizing punishment over investment have actually made society safer or simply more unequal.

Religion, Politics, and Moral Authority

The role of organized religion, particularly evangelical Christianity in the United States, became another major focus.

We criticized the continued support many churches have given to Donald Trump despite rhetoric and policies that many view as cruel, divisive, or discriminatory.

We discussed the tension between religious teachings centered on compassion and policies centered on exclusion, detention, and punishment. The conversation also explored the historical role some religious institutions played in defending segregation and other forms of systemic discrimination.

A recurring theme was the belief that moral authority becomes difficult to claim when institutions consistently align themselves with political power over human dignity.

A Global Trend, Not Just an American One

Toward the end of the episode, we discussed how these political trends are not unique to the United States.

We pointed to rising right-wing populism in the United Kingdom following Brexit and argued that anti-immigrant politics, nationalism, and racial scapegoating are part of a broader global movement.

The underlying fears, frustrations, and political strategies appear increasingly similar across multiple countries.

Wealth, Power, and Corporate Influence

We closed by reflecting on wealth inequality and corporate power.

We criticized the concentration of wealth among billionaires such as Elon Musk and argued that political and corporate elites often benefit from systems that divide working people while concentrating resources at the top.

The conversation ultimately returned to a central idea: incarceration, detention, economic inequality, and racial politics are not separate issues. They are interconnected systems shaped by profit, political incentives, and historical structures that continue to influence modern society.

But this isn’t over. We will overcome because we know the difference between right and wrong, even those of us who refuse to admit it. This is what we discuss in the podisode today: Voting Rights. We also discuss abortions and the rise in women’s mortality. So buckle up, listen in, and get some perspective.

We talk about Trump, we discuss diversity, but we’re changing format to be more structured and therefore (hopefully) easier to follow along. Have a listen, and let us know what you think!

Good.

Which of these lines grips your attention?

Immigrants are stealing your jobs.

Or…

Immigrants generate approximately a trillion dollars to the GDP.

Again, you don’t know anything about which of these is true, but you hear it being said. Which would your mind draw you toward?

I’d argue for the first. Why? Because it does things the other doesn’t do. First, it positions the reader as the main character in the story. Isn’t that how we all see the world? I am the protagonist, and everyone else is a secondary character. So by reading the first line, we see that you, as the reader, are being wronged. We also see who the antagonist is, or at least the class of people who are antagonists: immigrants. And finally, we have a vivid action/transgression: stealing jobs.

It doesn’t matter if it’s not true. A person can immediately connect, and it’s an entire story rolled up into a single sentence. Anyone can imagine that. Nearly every American has competed for a job at one point in their lives, and lost one. And nearly every American has felt that they were qualified for that job, and therefore that the job should have rightfully been theirs. The idea of having a job stolen from us, isn’t a lot of work to comprehend.

Now let me ask a question: what does generating a trillion dollars for the GDP look like? What does that mean to me? I can’t connect to it. I can’t eat GDP. GDP isn’t a job. Gross domestic product, take my word for it, most Americans don’t even truly understand. In other words, who cares?

I know, and I’d wager many of you reading this know, that a higher GDP means higher jobs and more opportunities. But it’s a lousy story. And our entire society, let’s be perfectly honest here, is built on stories. A better sentence would be this:

Thank an immigrant for your job.

This is an opening sentence that resonates slightly better. It still centers the reader, but the problem with this one is that there’s no antagonist. It’s not telling a story. It’s boring, and boring isn’t great for building society. We need to do better than this. So let’s try again, but think it through first. We need three things: a protagonist, an antagonist, and an action. The protagonist is a given and should always be the reader. The antagonist and action are unclear here. The topic is to remain jobs, as that’s what we’re talking about, for consistency. But what about the antagonist or the action? How about this?

Corporations are shipping your jobs overseas.

That tells a story. That resonates. Antagonist is corporations (oh, those evil corporations), shipping is the verb, operating against the jobs that you, as a reader, might have. You’re not getting those jobs because they’re going overseas. Succinct. Tells a story, and resonates.

But if we wanted to do a positive story about immigrants, how would we do that? Try this.

Jobs created by immigrants pay you more.

Here, the antagonist is implied: more. Here, the “more” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, because the imagination can fill in the rest. So the antagonist is somewhat indirect. “More than corporations would typically pay you?” Maybe. But really, it’s: "more than some other evil person who wants you to die.”

Okay, I went a little far with that one. But the knowledge is conveyed that immigrants create jobs, and not in a hand-wavy GDP way. Again, does it matter if it’s true? Maybe. Maybe not. But it tells a story, and that’s what counts. The fact that immigrants create jobs makes it loud and clear, and then we can argue about whether said jobs pay more or less, but either way that argument goes, it’s undeniable that immigrants create jobs.

We all need to think about this, I feel. Those statistics are nice, but if we can’t tell a good story with them, they might as well not exist at all.

Generally, the idea of a technocracy is fundamentally sound. The idea that we make our decisions based on dispassionate evidence as opposed to impassioned pleas gives many of us our own special kind of hope. And, given the exponential rise in tech, we often consider this a desirable outcome. This is why it must have come as some surprise that the likely technocrats sided with the fascists. That’s because what a lot of us fell into is the same trap that I fell into as a child, and one that I call: Spock Syndrome.

If you, like me, and like many Americans, fell in love with Star Trek as a child, then you know who Spock is: that lovable half-Vulcan who left his civilization, one based on the alleged purity of logic, to join the human world on James T. Kirk’s starship Enterprise. In so very many of the episodes and movies, the real winner of the day is Spock, who applies his reason to the situations, and the crew and ship come out better for it. Other aliens, those led by their emotions, like the Klingons, or like Khan from the Wrath of Khan, are often defeated by reason and logic, despite the fact that Kirk is anything but reasonable.

I was impressed by this and strove to be able to make decisions like that. I leaned heavily into logic and reason, and that sort of set me on my course to become an engineer. And, like many, I decided that technocracy wouldn’t be the worst thing. But, like my fleeting interest in Libertarianism, which fell apart the moment I discovered that it was rooted in Objectivism (look up what that means), I began to realize something was off. But what?

The problem with technocracy is that technology is morality-agnostic. A bomb doesn’t care who it blows up. Infamously, the IBM machines used in Germany in World War 2 didn’t care that Nazis were using them to track the alleged “undesirables” either. This means that technological advancement is completely unrelated to any moral foundation.

Continuing the analogy, Kirk is humanity and the moral compass in Star Trek. He’s the human in the mix, and the moral compass to Spock’s cold logic. The truth is that some moral obligation must temper Spock’s cold reason, because…logic, the foundation of technological advancement, like advancement itself, has no underlying morality. To think otherwise is self-deception.

I learned about this in a logic course, but it seemed so fundamentally obvious that I glossed past it. Consider the expression: “this sentence is a lie.” (Bear with me here, because this ties back.) If we interpret that expression, then we’ve stumbled into a logical contradiction. If the sentence is in fact a lie, then the sentence would be false. If the sentence is not a lie, then it would also be false, because the sentence couldn’t be a lie and not a lie at the same time. Simple, but it’s one example of how logic, and therefore its derivative technology, has no fundamental underlying morality. After all, it is morality that dictates that we care about the truth.

So, expecting something like a technocracy to be the savior of humanity, despite the technologists who would tell you otherwise, is ludicrous. Once we see that, we must look at the technologists and ask: why would they then be interested in running the world?

The answer is the same for them as for any other group attempting to seek power: people always crave power. It’s just that simple, and that’s the lens through which we should see all running for power. Anyone claiming to have the silver bullet to “save humanity” is wrong. But fundamentally, we all know this.

And we keep reaching for silver bullets because building and maintaining society is hard. It’s hard considering complex systems and the outcomes of those complex systems. And not all of us are up to the challenge: not a judgment, but a fact. I did say this was hopeful, though, so where’s the hope?

The hope is in this: technology still bends to the morality of the general public. We see the sleeping giant of America waking up now, and realizing that we’ve let the technologists play without a leash for far too long. They’ve decided to take over, and just like anyone else who has tried to take over anything, are attempting to install a fascist government to keep themselves on top in perpetuity. This has little to do with what’s good for America and everything to do with what’s good for themselves.

Let’s just say that people who are doing things in the interest of the masses have little need for billionaire bunkers to protect themselves from the rest of society.

No tool can oppress people who have tasted freedom. This is the hopeful part: we, Americans, and citizens of the world, outnumber the technocrats billions to one. There is no world in which their chosen future can become real. So…technology will not save us, but we will save ourselves. And as we do, we must remember that any morality we have to bring ourselves. Logic can’t do it, reason can’t do it.

Nobody can decide on the morality but us.

But we can decide it.

The people at the top enjoy the benefits, while the people at the bottom at least have a place. That’s the outdated bargain that a lot of people have bought into. But I wonder, do they really know what they’re buying?

We do. Let’s discuss.

We’ve been here before. The McCarthy era with the House Un-American Activities Commission, Nixon and the Watergate scandal, and others throughout history. We’ve had the holocaust and the Japanese internment camps to learn from as well. As a society, with a well-documented history, things should never have gotten MAGA-bad. So the question we’re wondering in this podisode is…

How do we not get back here again? To do that, we have to fully understand how we got here; a lot of this has been happening for a long time. Probably longer than you think. We’ll discuss.

We dive deep into the news surrounding Pete Hegseth and the emerging anti-DEI vision for a so-called “America First” military. We question the direction of our national institutions and the evolving nature of the military-industrial complex, specifically how it intersects with religious and patriotic identity. As we navigate these uncertain times, we’re exploring what it truly means to serve and lead in a landscape that feels increasingly disconnected from traditional values. Join us as we challenge the status quo and stand firm in our commitment to truth and liberty.

We’re focused on the conversation. Generative AI was used to build this summary, which was then reviewed by .

Ahem.

No fucking kings in the United States.

Ever.

That is all.

But we knew he would. Why? Because he’s been saying this the whole time. Once someone shows you who they are….well…you know the rest.

The reason Patriarchy is wrapped up in it is that Patriarchy is wrapped up in it, and the reason Epstein is wrapped up in it is that Epstein is the obvious conclusion of following a dangerous philosophy that sees women as incompetent and second-class. Somehow, though, this is a result that a lot of men and women struggle to connect, so we’re connecting the dots in this podcast episode.

Trigger warning: we talk about Epstein, and we use the words that are appropriate to do so.

“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”

-Sun Tzu

In this podcast episode, we talk about the Strait of Hormuz, the Iran war, and the incompetent leadership we have to deal with in this country. There are so many problems that our United States military has to face that we at Right and Freedom believe that our lackluster leaders are unnecessarily putting even the best military into harm’s way, unprepared. A lot more people will get hurt than should. This, in our view, is unacceptable, and so we’re taking this opportunity to speak out against this incompetence, because our brothers and sisters in arms want to survive.

The best way to protect our military is not to use them, and if you do have to use them, use them with competence, discipline, and self-control.

Our existing president has none of these attributes.

A troubling reality has emerged in America’s immigration enforcement system: compliance with ICE doesn’t guarantee safety—it simply moves abuse behind closed doors where accountability disappears.

American Citizens Behind Bars

Detention facilities now maintain dedicated sections specifically for wrongfully detained U.S. citizens. Despite possessing valid passports, Americans are being held for 70+ hours, unable to contact family or legal counsel. Some have even been deported to foreign countries, their citizenship status ignored.

A Pattern of Racial Profiling

The common thread? Darker-skinned individuals are presumed non-citizens regardless of documentation. Video evidence shows vulnerable people, including an elderly blind man, abandoned at locked facilities with nowhere to go.

Medical Neglect Turns Deadly

Inside these centers, preventable deaths are mounting:

• Untreated infections leading to sepsis

• A woman who nearly bled out, ending up in intensive care

• Systematic denial of necessary medical care

• Physical and violent abuse

Reports document disturbing patterns of violence, including choking deaths and beatings. The lack of oversight allows these abuses to continue unchecked.

Economic Devastation

Week-long detentions without employer contact result in job loss. Wrongfully detained citizens emerge to find themselves unable to pay bills or secure new employment—their lives upended by a system meant to protect them.

The Cost of Looking Away

This isn’t just an immigration issue—it’s a constitutional crisis affecting American citizens whose only “crime” is their appearance.

Summaries above generated from our conversation, using the artificial intelligence capabilities of Zoom AI Companion.

A Constitutional Crisis

The operation raises fundamental questions about presidential war powers. Launching what effectively constitutes an act of war without congressional authorization is illegal, regardless of which party controls the White House. While there may be a 60-day window provided by the War Powers Resolution, the war in Iran represents an alarming expansion of executive power that undermines constitutional checks and balances.

No Exit Strategy

Perhaps more troubling than the legal questions is the apparent lack of strategic planning. With no organized resistance movement capable of establishing a stable government, the regime-change objective appears unattainable. The operation killed the Ayatollah and caused civilian casualties, including damage to infrastructure and over a hundred school children dead—actions likely to fuel rather than diminish anti-American sentiment.

History Repeating Itself

The parallels to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are impossible to ignore. Each intervention promised swift victory and democratic transformation. Each instead created power vacuums, spawned new extremist movements, and trapped America in prolonged conflicts. Iran appears poised to follow this same pattern.

Ironically, America’s current problems with Iran stem from a previous intervention—the 1950s overthrow that installed a totalitarian regime. We are now fighting the consequences of our own past actions!

The Human Cost

Six American soldiers have paid the ultimate price so far, including a woman and a minority service member. Their sacrifice deserves recognition and raises questions about military leadership’s commitment to honoring all who serve.

A Convenient Distraction?

The timing has not gone unnoticed, with some suggesting the Iran action diverts attention from other controversies demanding investigation and media scrutiny.

As America embarks on yet another Middle Eastern intervention, the question remains: Will we finally learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat it?

Summaries above generated from our conversation, using the artificial intelligence capabilities of Zoom AI Companion.

The same cynical calculation happens in war. This is why we don’t talk about war in terms of how much money can be made. That concept died out in the Middle Ages, and should stay dead, so it’s disturbing to hear otherwise. And let’s not forget that Iran is made up of human beings, as is every other country on the planet. The people who lead rarely represent the people of the nation, although in democracies, they do tend to be closer to representative. In Iran, this isn’t remotely the case. And destroying an elementary school along with allied troops is evidence of a horrible mismanagement of epic proportions.

The only type of war that’s allegedly worth it is fought for moral reasons, not for economic ones. There is nothing about the current war that implies any moral high ground, especially since the weapons that we’re supposed to be fighting over have allegedly been neutralized earlier in the Summer of 2025. In other words, this is a self-imposed war that has already cost American lives, and has no useful purpose, and no exit strategy. It’s Iraq all over again, only without the recent justification of 9/11 to spur us on. So this time, the ruse is falling flat, and rightfully so.

Don’t fall for the hype. War benefits nobody. The poor pay, and the rich line their pockets.

https://www.koat.com/article/allegations-of-bodies-buried-at-epsteins-new-mexico-ranch-prompt-investigation-calls/70306881

Okay, now that we got that out of the way, wtf? Honestly, there was a report of bodies buried at Zorro Ranch (the ranch mentioned also in Virginia Giuffre’s disturbing, yet moving, memoir of what Epstein did to her, but not the bodies). But is it so hard to imagine that people who raped, molested, and tortured little girls would have a strangulation or two as well? Especially given how prevalent the strangulation fetish has become, I think it’s safe to assume that at least some of the clients, for lack of a better word, were into this, and when your victim can’t say no, how do you ensure their safety? And from what I’ve read, safety wasn’t ever a real concern.

So given that Trump is mentioned over a million times in the Epstein files, and that his entire cabinet is basically the who’s who of the files, and the trail of suspicious deaths that seem to follow him…I can’t help but wonder whether…well…whether murder is the Trump card? What do you think? Could the man who said he could murder someone on Fifth Avenue actually murder someone?

There’s no statute of limitations on murder.