Q Anon: (3/22/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration

we-go-all.com/# ^ | 3/22/2018 | FReepers, vanity

[No_Doll_i]

The thought being tossed about is that under the Emergency Act, the POTUS has the ability to appropriate funds as he deems necessary.

I personally think it is a BIG stretch.

[hoosiermama]

Just posted almost above yours

[mairdie]

Marine Hymn Q-Cards Download - 42 MB

[No_Doll_i]

LoL you listening to Deadcat and company?

[Diogenesis]

The new Military Manual for Court Martial was issued on March 1, 2018.
It is a 636-page annex to EO 13818, and prepares the way for Nuremberg-type tribunals,
ANNEX 1 Section 1. Part II of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United …
In accordance with this new manual, military tribunals are being established to indict,
arrest, try, convict and sentence those members of the Deep State,
along with the Shadow Government that has criminally held the world in
economic slavery, caused psychological fear (terrorism),
administered or benefited from sexual abuse, and deprived the peoples
of advanced technological discoveries and factual information.

There are now over 18,000 sealed indictments.
Guantanamo Bay Prison is being prepared,
and the Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List
(SDN … of people, corporations and foundations have had their assets frozen
by the U.S. Treasury Department based on Trump’s Dec. 21 EO.
Currently the list is over 1108 pages of Foundations, organizations,
corporations and people that have operated for decades
within the swampy Deep State without a hint of interference from law enforcement.

[No_Doll_i]

Hey mairdie
I meant to get back to you and your husband. Turns out I had downloaded the 32 bit version of the player, once I got the 64 bit it plays fine.

Great job, Many Thanks!

[edzo4]

https://youtu.be/G9M3de5mISY

10/22 machine gun, view it now before YouTube takes it down..

[MNDude]

meme of the year!

[Cboldt]

-- The thought being tossed about is that under the Emergency Act, the POTUS has the ability to appropriate funds as he deems necessary. --

WTF is "The Emergency Act?" Be specific.

In HR 1625, I see references to:

• Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 [p 1494, et seq]
• Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988 [p 1548]
• EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS [p 1574]
• Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act [p 1602]
• Emergency Solutions Grants program as authorized under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [p 1615]
• Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 [p 1620]
• Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 [p 59]
• Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977 [p 127]

There are probably others, and those are just the rhetoric where the title literally includes the word "Act," there are numerous other "Programs" and other labels where Congress saw fit to cite an emergency or the possibility of an emergency.

And that doesn't get to the possibility that you are thinking of declaration of emergency by the president, and not some Congressional "Emergency Act."

I mean generically, sure, the president can allocate funds for emergencies. That isn't unusual. He can never appropriate, that is only for Congress. He can allocate money that Congress spends, and he can ask or beg for an appropriation, but Congress has the purse strings.

This appropriation bill is fairly pedestrian in appropriating funds for emergency purposes. I doubt Trump could convince Congress that building the wall is the sort of emergency that justifies building the wall without a specific appropriation, and Congress is who he has to sell the argument to.

[hoosiermama]

Turned them off after last Q release. Much smarter people here

[Duchess47]

Does this mean what it seems to mean?

>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...ps-border-wall

FAIR WARNING: THIS week’s column is a deep dive into the inner workings of the House of Representatives. When you kick that rock over, goodness knows what will skitter out. In this case, it reveals some unsavory shenanigans to funnel money to President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall.

If you’re for the wall, you’re thinking, “Good! We should be spending taxpayer dollars to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.” But, if I told you the money was going to come from the Pentagon budget, would that still make sense to you?

Federal military troops are forbidden to engage in law enforcement actions – such as enforcing immigration law – by the long-standing posse comitatus prohibitions. (The National Guard is a different case, since its members are under the partial control of their state governors.) The federal agencies charged with protecting U.S. borders and enforcing immigration laws, like the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, are in the Department of Homeland Security. And the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2018 includes just over $44 billion for the department.

o, again, I ask, why should the Pentagon be asked to pay for a border wall? It seems to be a testament to the famous reason Willie Sutton gave for robbing banks: “Because that’s where the money is.” The Pentagon, with a total proposed budget of $639 billion ($574 in base budget and $65 billion in special “war” accounts), is where lawmakers can find the money for just about anything.

But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn’t tasked with paying for the wall: “Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States.”

A careful reading of this language (and that’s what we do at Taxpayers for Common Sense) points out this is a fairly broad prohibition. The armed services committees don’t ultimately control how federal dollars are spent. The Constitution preserves that role for the appropriations committees. But by saying “or otherwise made available … for the Department of Defense,” the House Armed Services Committee was foreclosing the possibility of spending any Pentagon money on this wall in a more comprehensive way.

That was the plan. And at Taxpayers for Common Sense, we supported the idea.

Enter the House Rules Committee. A little known congressional powerhouse, the Rules Committee is also called the speaker’s committee. It’s called that because the speaker of the House simultaneously served as the chairman of the committee until 1910 and, as the committee website says, “because it is the mechanism that the speaker uses to maintain control of the House floor.”

The Pentagon policy bill, HR 2810, needed a “rule” to allow for its consideration on the House floor. The committee meets to consider the hundreds of amendments offered by House members, decide which will be allowed during House debate and determine how long that debate may last. And this is where we’re going to step off the cliff into the inner workings of the House, as I promised above.

An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.

The Rules Committee took this one amendment and labeled it, “proposed to be adopted.” In the arcana of House rules, this means that voting for the rule governing consideration of the bill was also voting for this amendment. This is known as a “self-executing rule.” The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, offered an amendment to strike the self-executing portion of the rule and was defeated in committee on a party-line vote of 4-8.

On the House floor, the vote on the full rule passed. And at the end of a long and exhausting day (and story), that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall. Talk about governing under the cover of darkness.

[mairdie]

Any time. Paul likes to help out.

[MHGinTN]

The world-wide pedo devils ring is about to be splashed upon the public. And a few of the names will shock folks to their core!

[hoosiermama]

I am smiling from ear to ear. First or maybe second thing thought about. First was the wall It starts Monday morning. Would I ever love to have a drone to watch the trucks drive up!

[No_Doll_i]

Yeah I should turn them off as well, but sometimes the people from the chat come up with so good links and data.

[Diogenesis]

Connect the dots from Podesta to the FB"I" through the Hoggs.

[hoosiermama]

Read the December 21st declaration of national emergency

https://amac.us/president-trump-signs-executive-order-declares-national-emergency/

[Billyv]

In the military, one cannot use new money to tear down and rebuild a current structure without authorization. However, according to the Regs in the USAF, an old building may be ‘renovated’ as long as part of the original structure remains. They have been tearing down buildings until only one corner is still framed and totally redesigning the structure using that one corner as the cornerstone of the building.

Not new, simply a renovation. Leave one fence post on each coast and renovate the border wall from sea to shining sea. A military self help project expending training dollars to train soldiers, sailors, and airmen on using heavy equipment and combat construction technology and modern equipment. After construction the fence would be signed over to the border patrol as in a public park project done the same way by the guard and reserve all year long every year.

[No_Doll_i]

Alrighty then. Note to self: only as 3 legal question per day to Cboldt, the 4th will get a brutal response.
;-0

[Vermont Lt]

That is hilarious. I wonder if Chuckie and Nancy are laughing about that.