Only weeks ago, mainstream media reported on an attempted assassination attempt.

A man in Virginia was arrested last week for allegedly making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris. Frank Carillo, 66, is accused of posting more than 4,000 comments on the social media platform GETTR, threatening several public officials, including Harris and President Biden.

Before that, the DoJ had posted this news about Twitter:

On July 27, 2024, Kyl Alton Hall, 37, made numerous posts on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). Specifically, in the posts, he threatened to kill, assassinate, shoot, and crash the plane of President Biden; assassinate Vice President Harris; and assassinate former President Obama.

This follows an earlier case detailed by the DoJ.

Videos show Phelps making threats, using curse words, and claiming she had accepted $53,000 to carry out the assassination of Vice President Harris within 50 days. Some videos were recorded by her children. After sending these videos, Phelps sent a photo of herself with a firearm and a target sheet from a gun range. Two days later, she applied for a concealed weapon permit.

In light of these incidents, it’s striking that Elon Musk, who tweets over 100 times a day, has been silent about such threats to Harris.

Musk instead has chosen to use his Twitter account to:

1. Spread misinformation and misrepresent mainstream news.
2. Incite violence by questioning why his followers aren’t attempting to assassinate politicians he dislikes.

See the huge problems? Consider carefully the issues in Musk’s recent tweet against the backdrop of the mainstream news presented above it. The DoJ itself has published extremely clear documentation of active violent threats against Harris. Yet Musk commits intentional disinformation to dangerously amplify political violence as a targeted call to specific action, even doubling down on his lies and incitements when challenged.

Historically, figures like Trump have used provocative rhetoric to increase risks of violence deliberately.

ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults.

Musk’s recent behavior appears to align and attempt to direct such dangerous patterns, potentially as part of a broader, conspiratorial strategy, like it’s 1987 Cuito Cuanavale again.

Historian note: Elon Musk and his family abruptly left Apartheid South Africa in 1988, when accountability was looming large, reportedly taking significant wealth amassed from racism. The implications of this background, Musk laundering his Apartheid blood money through unregulated tech and stock pumping schemes (e.g. PayPal, Tesla, Bitcoin), deserves closer scrutiny. What we are seeing today is a continuation of anti-democratic methods documented well and repelled often since the 1930s.

Delays in response to the threat significantly amplify the cost of prevention and response. That’s why it’s universally recognized that anyone encouraging violence or destabilizing political systems is both morally and legally unacceptable:

• Federal Anti-Terrorism laws say any acts that incite or encourage violence or terrorism are prosecutable.
• Threat/Intimidation against public figures violate state and federal laws.
• Incitement to Violence means any speech inciting imminent lawless action is not protected.
• Conspiring to provoke or carry out violent acts also is illegal.

Why doesn’t Musk take a stand against violence and hate? Why has he instead been provoking it as his personal brand of extreme “free” speech, even amplifying and normalizing Nazism?

His weird actions suggest a constant troubling disregard for legal and ethical baselines. Musk’s open and obnoxious methods of extremist right political agitation, as an illegal immigrant who believes his foreign wealth and access to power through abuse of technology puts him above the law in a country he aims to ruthlessly exploit, is the very definition of white supremacist. He is singlehandedly (unless you count his fellow South African prince Peter Thiel) making old Apartheid crimes into a very present-day warning to Americans, who mostly seem unfamiliar with his horrible family history.

Musk’s behavior and its implications are reminiscent of past methods of certain racist “business” men to ruthlessly destabilize democratic political systems around the world. This highlights exactly why he poured billions of Russian money into the purchase of Twitter, and the very urgent need for his accountability in the enforcement of responsible discourse.

There are significant concerns raised in a recent report regarding mental health care within the American active duty military.

Tech. Sgt. Jacob Venegas’s death on August 28 at Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, marked the third suicide there in just 33 days and the fourth since March. This alarming trend highlights potential deficiencies in the support systems at the base, which is home to the 8th Fighter Wing.

These troubling reports prompt a critical examination of the American approach to mental health risks.

Is the United States Air Force (USAF) adequately equipping leaders to identify and address mental health issues effectively, such that they are held accountable for the environment they lead? Given that suicides are allegedly their top cause of death, is this crisis receiving the attention and priority it demands?

In combat situations, where the environment is unpredictable and variables are numerous, assigning blame can be challenging. However, accountability is known as essential for understanding failures, improving tactics, and enhancing procedures to prevent future issues.

In contrast, the response to rising suicide rates appears to focus more on broad systemic support rather than on the results from specific accountability. This approach may fall short in addressing the immediate and actionable steps needed to prevent such tragedies. Assigning responsibility for specific incidents could be crucial in developing more effective interventions and support structures.

Another day, another report of a NJ Tesla abruptly leaving the road and killing its occupants.

David Dryerman, 54, of Woodcliff Lake, was heading north in a Tesla Model S when the vehicle ran off the road to the left, struck a sign, struck a guardrail and a concrete bridge support just before midnight at milepost 131.1 in Woodbridge, New Jersey State Police Sgt. Charles Marchan said. As a result of the crash, David Dryerman, occupant Michele Dryerman, a 54-year-old woman, and a 17-year-old juvenile girl, all from Woodcliff Lake, died. Sources tell Daily Voice that the two adults were parents and teen was their daughter. The couple also has a son, whose age wasn’t immediately known.

Their son survived because he was not in the Tesla at the time. Note the other similar recent Tesla crashes in NJ if you are looking for reasons why nobody should be driving in or around them on public roads anymore.

A year ago people were wondering out loud if Tesla would design a Cybertruck to run electrical current to the body.

Would it be possible to electrify the exterior of the cybertruck if there was a possibility of physical harm to the passengers in the truck?

If you squint your eyes hard enough you might read this grammar as someone asking if they can electrocute emergency responders who try to rescue passengers from a crashed Cybertruck.

Nevermind that, however, because an actual owner boasted that when his vehicle became improperly electrified, the Cybertruck automatically went into “hibernation”.

If current is detected anywhere it’s not supposed to be (e.g., your battery has a loose wire and is discharging onto the doors, posing an electrocution risk), the high-voltage system hibernates to avoid injury. And that’s exactly what my truck did. […] Before anyone gets the wrong idea — what’s happening with my truck is not necessarily something that went wrong…. There are too many variables to identify exactly what happened on my truck and where, but we know one thing: it’s working as designed.

Leave it to a Tesla owner to say that a brand new vehicle completely unusable and an electrocution hazard is “working as designed”.

This goes beyond the emperor has no clothes into the emperor likes being humiliated, with electroshocks.

Now cue the latest update to this design feature debate: an Idaho farmer, famous for his Cybertruck purchase in an attention-grabbing scheme, is now happy to be reporting that 120V flows through the vehicle body (even the wheel lug nuts) after he plugs in a charging cable.

While it might appear that Smith set out to debunk critiques, he just wanted to grow his TikTok account. “It was something unique that people hadn’t seen and something that I felt would get good engagement, and it did,” Smith said.

Yeah, getting electrocuted by touching a car is very, very unique to Tesla. No hibernating in this case. And the owner seems to enjoy demonstrating the unnecessary dangers a little too much, like he’s sticking a fork in live outlet to get a laugh.

Finally someone found something positive about the Cybertruck.

But seriously, this attention-seeking potato farmer released a follow-up video where he assures the audience his problem is real… but only with the charging cable, not the Cybertruck. It’s hard to believe his distinction at face value given there’s an obvious emphasis in his first video of the truck electrifying its body simply by being plugged in. The purpose of real safety designs, such as common and inexpensive ground fault interrupters, is to prevent the risk of electrocution regardless of the condition of a cable.