Harvard, UPenn Presidents Grilled in Congress on Antisemitism 

When the university is getting donations of billions of dollars from terror organizations or terror supporting countries like Qatar, it depends on the context. The context of who pays your salary.

apperantly if its jewish people it's cool

Some people will argue that blinking your right eye is a means of calling for genocide.

some people will argue that going into your home while you sleep and butchering you and your kids is an act of genocide. apperantly you dont@@larrym2434

they call right--wrong; wrong-right. they are a confused bunch.

😂😂😂 So much for Hillary Clinton’s “college educated voters” she and mainstream media portended to be superior to Trump voters in 2016.. Glad all women aren’t this indoctrinated! 😂😂😂

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

Exactly. I commented noting the absurdity of being allowed to explicitly call for genocide but not being allowed to say that men cannot menstruate and the Woketube removed my post.

It isn't right to remove everybody's posts either.

EXACTLY!!

Severely underrated comment

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

Don't worry. EVERYBODY knows what they said. They can't hide it. It's VIRAL!

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

Agree

And yet we are here.

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers. The Congresswoman should resign.

And faces. She could almost be J.J.'s twin.

The beautiful thing is she’s not JJ’s twin, and if she were, this would mean the Evans have come a long way baby. I would say, it pays to have two strong parents in the household, it will take the disenfranchised to the seat of power in private institutions. Bravo 👏🏼

Just to be clear here. I’m pretty darn liberal and this is disgusting and disturbing. I would never ever ever endorse this. Ever. Calling for the genocide of ANY ethnic group, race, religion, sexual orientation or identity is categorically unacceptable.

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

Let’s be honest this was just a Israeli puppet trying to stir up propaganda. Good on them for laughing in her face and trolling her back

That's Democrats for ya. They can call Trump supporters ULTRA MEGA MAGA extremists but can't call out the Lefts far left extremist Biden supporters.

🇮🇱

It’s not erase those fake Jews

yeah, of course, but is anyone gonna deny that the politician is just jumping on an opportunity to virtue signal over a semantic disagreement

If, however, it involved advocating for the enslavement of Black people, do you think that she would have answered that it depends on the context? In that case there would not be any "overanalyzing process." This has nothing to do with "academia's habit of overanalyzing."

she didn't analyze it or her interlocutor enough

@@dutube99 after repeating 17 times the same question?

@@Dr.HarshTruth yes - she didn't grasp quickly enough that is a simple question, and no amount of equivocating, like saying "context dependent" is going to save her. She's not savvy enough to realize that simple and direct is a lot smarter than a bunch of humming and hawwing.

@@dutube99 I disagree. Did you notice the smirk of the presidents of Harvard and Pennsylvania? This reveals that they know what they were saying, but they thought that the woke culture leads the world enough to protect them while answering that way.

💯

They are standing up for free speech and you can't give them any credit because a media echo chamber has turned half your brain off. Also they're women and one of them is black, so I'm sure the idea of rooting for them or appreciating anything the have said or done is beneath you. They are saying they would protect your rights if you were their student, and you insult them. You have to conjure up some BS scenario that never took place becaus you'd rather fight a strawman than find yourself siding with an identity you've been taught to hate and fear

💥💯💥

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

Including the Bible?

Yes. Including Bible...conquistadors, inquisition@@infinightsky

extermination of jewish people by Roman Empire@@infinightsky

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Including what's going on Gaza right now?

because there is a more complicated line that we have to cross before we start venturing into thought policing, censorship, political gymnastics and suppression of expression. The legal precedent case Matel vs Tam on despairing trademarks established, by Supreme Court Justice James Alito, that speech which demeans on various bases, including race, ethnicity, gender, and religion, is hateful, but the freedom to express "the thought that we hate" is a fundamental aspect of free speech jurisprudence in the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy also emphasized the importance of protecting speech, even if offensive to some, as a safeguard for minority and dissenting views in a democratic society. That the danger of allowing government censorship is that definitions of hate speech can be amorphous and subjective. That the American model leans towards personal accountability and open discourse in society to challenge and overcome hateful ideas, rather than government-imposed restrictions. The same precedent also was used to strike down Institutional speech codes as violations of free speech BUT also states that the First Amendment does not protect direct, personal threats of immediate violence. In such cases, speech can be regulated, as in Virginia v. Black (2003), where certain intimidating symbolic actions were considered a form of threat. This is what the uPenn and Harvard was talking about. They already got their bells rung by courts that said it depends on the context and if it transform to conduct.

Welcome to adult life, in which people you disagree with have opinions and are not brow beaten by childish games.

Claudine is allowed to dodge questions because she is one of the "untouchables". Its sickening.

I feel for you. Same here!

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Not saying shes not allowed, but for ivory towers preaching tolerance, its ironic.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

@@plaguedeity r/swoosh

@@plaguedeity private universities have no duty to uphold first amendment laws because the first amendment only binds the government. It didn't even bind state governments until it was incorporated against them after the passage of the 14th, which started a doctrine of selective incorporation. it is their right to remove anyone who says anything for any reason, because it's not a public university there are no inherent rights there.

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Overpriced education

Academically Brainwashed.

You can say what you’re allowed to say, according to the constitution of the United States. The head of the university has limited, say over what that is.

It's only bigotry if it applies to whatever group they decide it should apply to. It's all projection. They call you racist while attacking jews and white people. They call you sexist while attacking men. They call you cruel while supporting genital mutilation of children. They call your speech violent while burning entire neighborhoods. They call you islamophobe while attacking christians. They call you intolerant for wanting border control while sending immigrants straight into homelessness and poverty.

Israel is actually COMMITTING GENOCIDE AS WE SPEAK!!!!! WTF!!!!!

@@kennethtopping8953 So you’re trying to say is you don’t know what the word genocide means. And you think using the word is going to give your cause power that it doesn’t deserve. That’s a powerful word it shouldn’t be used lightly. You realize Hamas could stop fighting anytime they wanted to, and the war would be over

O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware 1 (Al-Hujurat 13) Footnote 1: The Prophet (ﷺ) is reported in a ḥadîth collected by Imâm Aḥmed to have said, "O humanity! Your Lord is one, and your ancestry is one. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, nor is any non-Arab superior to any Arab. No white is superior to any black, nor is any black superior to any white except on account of their righteousness."

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

But the question wasn’t a right or a wrong question. It was a loaded question that opened the door to many controversies with free speech. They aren’t defending genocide, they’re defending free speech and preventing multiple civil lawsuits. These people aren’t dummies, they know exactly what their assignment is. Everyone else too triggered to see it.

@@DOC2089 Crazy triggered. Would not be surprised to see them with their pitchforks and torches marching to MA.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

@plaguedeity All of this is known. Here is the thing, you can go to work and cuss your boss out because you have freedom of speech. Chances are you will be written up or fired. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but you are not free of the consequences for what you say. Case in point UPenn's president resigning was the consequence for what someone else said. They had the free speech to call for the genocide of jews and the school had the right to defend the student's free speech. But low and behold, she lost her job because crazy as it sounds, people don't like when people advocate genocide. So that student exercised free speech and the president lost her job for it. Action and consequence...beautiful.

Something of an iffy area. First amendment. There's no law against advocating for genocide in the abstract, and if there were it would be struck down as unconstitutional - it's only when advocating for specific criminal actions that such speech may constitute a crime.

😂😂😂😂

that's not the quote

You're

More like the Jews bought these senators already.

Harvard President is a big hypocrite. She needs to go.

No Harvard having a we are never showing up for a congressional hearing again moment. Because Congress only cared about getting us fired. Asking question yes or no questions that either one was a bad answer. That’s basic training stuff.

​@@neilkurzman4907indeed. It shows how there's no conspiracy. They walked in not understanding it's a show trial.

@@java4653 Well, every other college president now knows the lesson. And now Congress has one less group of people that are willing to help them, or even deal with them

Unlike Palestinians who use the slogan „Death to Jews”, Israelis nor Jewish people chant „Death to Muslims” nor „Death to Palestinians”. Stop spreading misinformation. ​​⁠No, calling for genocide in question during the congressional hearing was not the ambiguous „From the river to the sea” BUT calling chanting „GLOBALIZE INTIFADA” on campuses. Intifada is historically terrorist resistance „by any means necessary” like 7.10 and historic past Intifadas which involved mass bus bonbings, suicide bombings of public spaces in Israel, knife murders of civilian Israelis in cafes and parks. Inciting violent breeches over free speech rights. So the double standard is Harvard conduct laws identifying chanting on campus or addressing Black or Muslim or Chinese or Queer fellow students calling for violence or terrorist death to either Black or Muslim or Chinese or Querr People IS (and rightfully so) inciting VIOLENCE against a minority and DOES breech both right to free speech AND Harvard code of conduct. So the issue is Harvard double standards bias against Jewish People wih regard to inciting violence.Shouting Free Palestine or protesting Israel army actions is your lawful and deserved right.

But usfg is a zog

because it's not genocide. If they wanted to do that, they could have long ago. You are very mixed up.

You’re deflecting. These people were allowing students in their colleges to freely shout genocide to Jews. Justice is being served.

they have been doing it for 75 years. Where have you been?@@dutube99

Nope they said genocide to Jews.

I had just said in another comment that this isn’t about answering yes or no. The question was loaded and they knew it, that’s why one had smirked. It was a trap. They were protecting free speech and possibly preventing future civil lawsuits. Dr. Gay’s dissertation was in political science lol her “evasive” answer was appropriate considering the question was an attack on free speech.

Harvard educated wokester right here.. Allow me to quote the late MLK who once said: "To the window, to the walls, 'till the sweat drip down my balls"

Calling for genocide and criticism are very different things.

Jews are criticized every step of the way

@@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Israel has been saying the same thing about Palestinians for years, if you can go and watch or read some news from Israel you will find examples and more information there, then you will see in the USA news.

@@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Tell me what is an acceptable criticism of Israel. According to Israel - nothing.

People get pretty upset if you criticize black people, but I do not think they control anything.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Yeah kinda like using someones "wrong pronouns" incites violence to gay and trans people. Lol

just because you have free speech dosent mean your not or what you said is racist or anti semetic.

In this context, yes

trying to get a straight answer is harassment? you work in the grown-up world?

This isn’t harassment. It’s a case and she’s questioning the people being tried. Learn the difference and stop making the law look bad.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

She resigned her seat, she remains a member of the faculty

Who is “she” here? All 3 ppl in this vid are women. Harvard has anti-bullying rules, does it not? It seems very odd to not apply them to calls for genocide . There really isnt any deep thinking required in this case. Censure the person (not censor), from that code of conduct, will teach them just fine. Not a “conversation”. Or “debate”. The only real question here is whether or not someone really did call for genocide. Otherwise your code of conduct’s best use is in your fireplace.

It should be, but at these indoctrination centers it is expected that students accept what they're told. That is NOT education.

A „debate” on whether a Genocide of ANY minority or nation constitutes a breech free speech and a such a „to genocide a minority or not debate” would hold zero pedagogical or educational value.

Doing so effectively means that you put the right of Jews to exist up for debate. The next issue is that Jews also are students on the campus and will be significantly affected by people calling for their collective deaths. Also, when they say this sort of thing, there is a likelihood of them convincing someone and letting the ideas spread.

I’m just wondering if that Balck woman equally stands by her balck community?! Probably she ain’t looking back.

@@polarispolaris5077 she left them behind a long time me ago. Baby want a white man’s world, lol.

Hamas is a massive group, with 40,000 active members, and inactive members in the hundreds of thousands.

Idk, why'd we treat anyone tangentially related to j6 like they were the ones shattering windows?

Does that also go for Trump supporters?

70-90% polled in gaza have no problem firing rockets at Israel and they voted Hamas as its governing body. I see you have been listening to the main stream media which has the lowest rating in truthfulness out of the 46 counties who measure the trust the populous has in their own media.

The Israeli military literally gave the Palestinian populace notice to evacuate. Many Palestinians did not want to leave. Then, when they tried to leave, Hamas trapped them in Palestine (essentially creating human shields). Hamas have purposely built many of their headquarters underneath hospitals and schools. For you to say Israel has "attacked an entire populace", is an egregious lie.

Antisemitic statement

are you saying that wanting to commit genocide is ok?

Never seen a dispute last this many decades.

Is genocide ok against Palestinians?

@@user-pi1nw3is2mYes. It absolutely is. If you want to live somewhere without caselaw like Brandenburg v Ohio, then leave America 👍🏻

who said that? having an allegiance to Israel and calling for a genocide of a certain group of people are not remotely the same thing or related

Yes. That's literally how it works.

lol yup that’s exactly what that means.

What year are you in?

Agree!

the smirk on her face says everything ,

Please don’t misgender him

??? shame on what.

There would be no inquisition. 99% of the students were supporting the Palestinian population, NOT Hamas. This is not anti-semitism, it's pro human rights. Not against any religion or ethnicity.

No, they still have their jobs if they refuse to talk to Congress. Which is what’s going to happen in the future.

Where do you get this from? Back up your “facts”.

The thing is they don’t allow anti lgabataq rhetoric on their campuses and would go apeshizz if there was coordinated harassment. The Presidents name is Gay for Crissakes 😂

@@trentbateman that’s what I was thinking 🤣😭

Should be defunded completely.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

@@plaguedeity That is true. However, we know the universities would have had a much more negative reaction to that than people calling to kill Jews; especially when they look like the "oppressor." Those students might have been expelled (and then people would be screaming "but their free speeeeech!")

Of course it's done in court everyday

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Israel is not wanting to commiting genocide. It is comitting genocide! And congress has not issue with that . In fact , it is assisting and is complicit to ship bombs and giving diplomatic cover at U.N.

It’s the YT supremacist playbook 😊

I laugh every time of you whack-a-doodles use Gaza and genocide in the same breath. You are forever a constant source of entertainment. There is not genocide happening in Gaza. 17K is collateral but dear, you can put that on Hamas even if that low number is true.

Only evil people laugh at death of innocents. @@anthonydavid5121

I’d like to see where you get this from. It was self defense against the agitator, Hamas. The people playing victims are Hamas who’s using people from Gaza as human meat shields and saying Israel is evil.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Doesn't work in politics though. Too easy for yes-or-no questions to be carefully crafted to force the subject into a situation where they can't answer without appearing as a monster. The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" This is a rather more subtle question, but it's the same idea. The factually correct answer is "Sometimes..." followed by a cumbersome explanation of how the university harassment policy is reconciled with their free speech policy and exactly where the line is drawn before a student's expressed views become a disciplinary matter. The interviewer here took efforts to deliberately rule out this complex an answer though, forcing the yes-or-no response. So the subject was left with no choice but to say either 'yes' which would be a lie, or 'no' which makes her look like a monster. This is what happens when you bring academics to a political arena. They just don't have the training or experience for it - they believe that honesty is always the best policy, and the aim of a discussion is to get to the truth. But in politics, the aim of the discussion is to make your side look good in the eyes of the watching voters and the other side look like idiots or criminals. The academic gets thoroughly clobbered.

Having said that, they could've explained themselves with more empathy and less disdain.

No, you are uninformed. Inciting violence against ANY minority breeches over the right of free speech.

@@Sad_bumper_sticker. From what I gather that prior to this questioning the speech that was in question was "From the river to the sea"? In Brandenburg vs. Ohio they're differentiating advocacy vs incitement. That phrase was interpreted by different groups over the years and even Israelis have used a slightly different version of it. But I agree, if the actual statement is "Kill all Jews" that's an incitement.

@@cnuque76 The Brandenburg v. Ohio primary holding: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The key is inciting or producing "imminent lawless action".

Yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions that do not provide enough information. They are great for sound bites on Fox News

@@bfattori01She said “Do you condemn people calling for genocide of Jews”. That is a very simple question.

@@bfattori01 If you have to avoid answering the question, you know you are in the wrong. They answered saying it, "depends on the context". The congresswoman asked, "What context?", and they still wouldn't give her a clear answer. Asking, "What context?", is not a yes or no question. The very fact that you think yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions, points to an underlying sense of guilt. As far as Fox News goes, they provided a far better sound bite for Fox News, by avoiding answering yes or no.

If they didn’t do anything wrong and hate speech in this context wasn’t allowed they could’ve just said yes, but them making excuses and not saying yes shows enough.

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

Lol

It's a equal sign with a slash through it. Doesn't take the Rosetta stone.

@celticpride9311 hey, did you google it? Maybe people who don't know how to communicate online shouldn't try.

I'm confused. Who is calling for eradication?

LOL. Found the secret racist.

1) Who hurt you, and are you talking to anybody about it? 2) How long have you been off your meds? 3) Are you in a safe location, do you know where you are, does EMS need to be called? Your state has local resources you can find out aboit by dialing 211 if you need assistance. 4) You can dial the national suicide hotline at 998. 5) You may need to award any dependent(s) temporarily to the state depending on how long (and it will be long, judging by you) you may stay in state-run care. 6) Are their any fire arms, drugs (prescription or otherwise), or any other weapons/sharp objects near you? Please secure them, for your own safety. 7) After safely receiving treatment, google your states education programs and finish getting your GED. 8) Attend one of the online seminars by the Anti-Defamation League to learn more about racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination. 9) Success! You're no longer the beleagured, psychotic, conspiratorial danger to society that you once were. Now you are stable and successful where your life was once a shambled mess. I am so proud of you! :)

Js only started caring when they came for them. Elon is right they are duplicitous

Pray for the conversion of Jews and Muslims!

@@tonylitwinowicz7497 nope, no such thing. God judges by nations and salvation ain’t for everybody.