|
Posted on 01/17/2021 3:57:23 PM PST by ransomnote
Q is the result of the sacrifices and commitment of countless patriots to win back our captured country from the Deep State and achieve the transformation President Trump promised in this campaign video. President Trump has said the awakening of the public is key to this transformation.
Q describes this awakening as follows:
"The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding 'mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!" ~ Q (#3038)
The video, Qanon is 100% coming from the Trump Administration, is just one of many excellent responses to the all-important question, "Whom does Q serve?"
Q Boot Camp is a quick, condensed way to learn the background and basics about the Q movement.
Q has reminded us repeatedly that together, we are strong. As the false "narrative" is destroyed and the divisive machinery put in place by the Deep State fails, the fact that patriotism has no skin color or political party is exposed for all to see.
In the battle between those who strip us our constitutional rights, we can't afford to let false divisions separate us any longer. We, and our country, will be forever made stronger by diligently seeking the truth, independence and freedom of thought.
Where We Go 1, We Go All
Read later.
From a nov. 18,2020 raid on cia headquarters.
From a Marine at CIA headquarters
The U.S. Marines raided the Central Inte....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THANKS, I needed that post!
“I’m not sure how to shut the trolls down other than ignore them or give them the worst case scenario. We’ll be eating like crap, in factories making items for the rest of the world. Our speech will be limited, we’ll be imprisoned or killed for our speech. Our Bibles will be burned, our churches burned down.”
How does believing in a false prophet who will magically fix it make any of that less likely ?
Bedtime.
Its probably recycled. Jerry Brown is not governor of CA for one...
In the Bible, true prophets inspired by God warned the people to pray for the Lord’s mercy.
False prophets always said, it’s going to be great. Don’t change a thing.
False prophets made false claims, and gave destructive advice. Speaking of which:
Q !UW.yye1fxo No.102 📁
Feb 18 2018 17:49:07 (EST)
TRUST SESSIONS.
TRUST WRAY.
2018 WILL BE GLORIOUS.
Q
This isn't my own reasoning. When I heard Mike Flynn use the term, "limited Martial Law" I had to look it up because I'd never heard of it. It describes the process of the military conducting a fair election. I think I've assumed we all read this content before and this is what I have had in view since that time.Tonight, I haven't searched far - I know Flynn's is/was on video talking about it, but I'll use some content he linked from his Twitter, which I believe has since been deleted. The content Flynn linked in his Tweet is still present on a 3rd party website and describes the same idea of "Limited Martial Law" that I'd heard/read Flynn talk about.
This is a definition from Black's Law Dictionary and a unanimous opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
There is no provision in the Constitution to impose martial law. There is a provision in Article I, under the powers of Congress, to revoke the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; but not the issuance of the writ itself.
To understand what martial law is, I provide the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
martial law. (1933)1. The law by which during wartime the army, instead of civil authority, governs the country because of a perceived need for military security or public safety. • The military assumes control purportedly until civil authority can be restored.
2. A body of firm, strictly enforced rules that are imposed because of a perception by the country’s rulers that civil government has failed, or might fail, to function. • Martial law is usu. imposed when the rulers foresee an invasion, insurrection, economic collapse, or other breakdown of the rulers’ desired social order.
“Martial law is the public law of necessity. Necessity calls it forth, necessity justifies its exercise, and necessity measures the extent and degree to which it may be employed. That necessity is no formal, artificial, legalistic concept but an actual and factual one: it is the necessity of taking action to safeguard the state against insurrection, riot, disorder, or public calamity. What constitutes necessity is a question of fact in each case.” Frederick B. Wiener, A Practical Manual of Martial Law 16 (1940).“[T]he term ‘martial law’ carries no precise meaning. The Constitution does not refer to ‘martial law’ at all and no Act of Congress has defined the term. It has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times. By some it has been identified as ‘military law’ limited to members of, and those connected with, the armed forces. Others have said that the term does not imply a system of established rules but denotes simply some kind of day to day expression of a General’s will dictated by what he considers the imperious necessity of the moment. See U.S. v. Diekelman, 92 U.S. 520, 526, 23 L.Ed. 742. In 1857 the confusion as to the meaning of the phrase was so great that the Attorney General in an official opinion had this to say about it: ‘The Common Law authorities and commentators afford no clue to what martial law, as understood in England, really is. ... In this country it is still worse.’ 8 Op. Atty. Gen. 365, 367. What was true in 1857 remains true today.” Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 315, 66 S.Ct. 606, 611 (1946) (Black, J.).
• absolute martial law. (1914) The execution of government functions entirely by military agencies, as a result of which the authority of civil agencies is superseded.
• qualified martial law. (1903) The execution of government functions partly by military agencies, as a result of which the authority of some civil agencies is superseded.
3. The law by which the army in wartime governs foreign territory that it occupies.
4. Loosely, military law.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) (Unanimous 9-0)
Syllabus1. Circuit Courts, as well as the judges thereof, are authorized, by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, to issue the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment, and they have jurisdiction, except in cases where the privilege of the writ is suspended, to hear and determine the question whether the party is entitled to be discharged.
2. The usual course of proceeding is for the court, on the application of the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, to issue the writ, and, on its return, to hear and dispose of the case; but where the cause of imprisonment is fully shown by the petition, the court may, without issuing the writ, consider and determine whether, upon the facts presented in the petition, the prisoner, if brought before the court, would be discharged.
3. When the Circuit Court renders a final judgment refusing to discharge the prisoner, he may bring the case here by writ of error, and, if the judges of the Circuit Court, being opposed in opinion, can render no judgment, he may have the point upon which the disagreement happens certified to this tribunal.
4. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, duly presented, is the institution of a cause on behalf of the petitioner, and the allowance or refusal of the process, as well as the subsequent disposition of the prisoner is matter of law, and not of discretion.
5. A person arrested after the passage of the act of March 3d, 1863, "relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," and under the authority of said act, was entitled to his discharge if not indicted or presented by the grand jury convened at the first subsequent term of the Circuit or District Court of the United States for the District.
6. The omission to furnish a list of the persons arrested to the judges of the Circuit or District Court as provided in the said act did not impair the right of said person, if not indicted or presented, to his discharge.
7. Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power.
8. The guaranty of trial by jury contained in the Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances.
9. The Federal authority having been unopposed in the State of Indiana, and the Federal courts open for the trial of offences and the redress of grievances, the usages of war could not, under the Constitution, afford any sanction for the trial there of a citizen in civil life not connected with the military or naval service, by a military tribunal, for any offence whatever.
10. Cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia in time of war or public danger, are excepted from the necessity of presentment or indictment by a grand jury, and the right of trial by jury in such cases is subject to the same exception.
11. Neither the President nor Congress nor the Judiciary can disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty incorporated into the Constitution except so far as the right is given to suspend in certain cases the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
12. A citizen not connected with the military service and a resident in a State where the courts are open and in the proper exercise or their jurisdiction cannot, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, be tried, convicted, or sentenced otherwise than by the ordinary courts of law.
13. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course, and, on its return, the court decides whether the applicant is denied the right of proceeding any further.
14. A person who is a resident of a loyal State, where he was arrested, who was never resident in any State engaged in rebellion, nor connected with the military or naval service, cannot be regarded as a prisoner of war.
OPINION of the Court at 120-21:
Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times71 U. S. 121
and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
OPINION of the Court at 71 U.S. 125-27
It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested71 U. S. 126
in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
It will be borne in mind that this is not a question of the power to proclaim martial law when war exists in a community and the courts and civil authorities are overthrown. Nor is it a question what rule a military commander, at the head of his army, can impose on states in rebellion to cripple their resources and quell the insurrection. The jurisdiction claimed is much more extensive. The necessities of the service during the late Rebellion required that the loyal states should be placed within the limits of certain military districts and commanders appointed in them, and it is urged that this, in a military sense, constituted them the theater of military operations, and as, in this case, Indiana had been and was again threatened with invasion by the enemy, the occasion was furnished to establish martial law. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If armies were collected in Indiana, they were to be employed in another locality, where the laws were obstructed and the national authority disputed. On her soil there was no hostile foot; if once invaded, that invasion was at an end, and, with
71 U. S. 127
it, all pretext for martial law. Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.
It is difficult to see how the safety for the country required martial law in Indiana. If any of her citizens were plotting treason, the power of arrest could secure them until the government was prepared for their trial, when the courts were open and ready to try them. It was as easy to protect witnesses before a civil as a military tribunal, and as there could be no wish to convict except on sufficient legal evidence, surely an ordained and establish court was better able to judge of this than a military tribunal composed of gentlemen not trained to the profession of the law.
It follows from what has been said on this subject that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society, and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration, for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. Because, during the late Rebellion, it could have been enforced in Virginia, where the national authority was overturned and the courts driven out, it does not follow that it should obtain in Indiana, where that authority was never disputed and justice was always administered. And so, in the case of a foreign invasion, martial rule may become a necessity in one state when, in another, it would be "mere lawless violence."
Tomorrow, today now actually, is the Feast of the Epiphany.
“How does believing in a false prophet who will magically fix it make any of that less likely ?”
+++++++++++++++++++++
Let me repeat myself, LOUD AND CLEAR, okay?? Cuz now you’ve pissed me off, Reverend Wright.
Q IS NOT A PROPHET!!!!!! Never has been, never will be. Q is a team, probably made up of military people with access to the highest level of intelligence who have given those of us who have had their eyes opened that stuff has happened, that stuff will happened.
Do you DENY that pedophilia is rampant?
Do you DENY that Joe Biden is puppet of the Chinese?
Do you DENY that Hunter Biden has raped not only his niece, but young girls as well?
Do you DENY that Hollywood is a cesspool of pedophilia, satanic worship, and murder?
Do you DENY that our government officials have gotten richer and richer and richer while many of us barely scrape by, because of the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY???
Where the HELL you got that Q is a prophet, goes to show your ignorance. Q is not a religion. How DARE you even suggest that those of us who follow Q’s posts are somehow less than you the REVEREND WRIGHT.
If you want your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren to be under the rule of China, then give up. But GET out of my way!
I see you have posted to me again, a Q post. I will not respond to you. I have no respect for you or your ignorance. I don’t care who you are.
Do you honestly think we worship Q? Excuse, me, your ignorance is showing.
DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST OR DID YOU JUST GO... “OH Q’S A FALSE PROPHET!!! BETTER WARN THE MASSES.”
Educate yourself before passing judgement. And while you’re at it.. take the dam log out of your eye.
And on the off chance, we wrong.. well welcome to New China.
Petey
First of all, to say True Prophets only predict doom is complete biblical illiteracy. Remove the phony reverend from your name if you are going to tout that. Second of all Q is not prophetic or a “prophet” nor claims to be.
Thirdly, you are completely disingenuous so get lost troll.
Take your diapers with you.
actually at this point I dont think we really know which States are the It Doesn’t Matter ones.
Because the cheating has been going on who knows how long ??
What we have resigned ourselves to as Unwinnable races, may be just the opposite with FRAUD out of the way
Bill Gates is the reason why I post execution threads.
************************************************************************
Bill Gates and George Soros and a few others!
‘m not a cleric, I just took the name of Obama’s goofy Reverend Wright the way Freepers way back when took the name of John Huang or Charlie Trie etc.
Is this the face of a woman saying goodbye in defeat?
Ever seen her smile like this?
Ever seen her eyes blaze like this?
You have been here since 1998, so you must remember Quidam during impeachment, with his claims of insider knowledge, “Trust Starr” “Trust Starr” etc.
Why do you think this is any different ?
I suspect it is the same guy, or at least someone who saw it at the time.
The trolls are taken care of nicely by not responding. Period. (We know because no one can argue in a vacuum.)
Red pilling trolls on thread was never the purpose of the thread. Q centric is why we’re here.
Caring about what trolls think is not the mission, either. Pests were left to cheerful bagster, or certainly to the mods.
Problem solved itself. Bore the trolls and they’re gone.
Super Secret huh Wah-Poo?
Big Yawn!
Besides, if a political party is proven to have engaged in fraud, it doesn’t really matter if fraud wasn’t committed in a few states because their election systems are tight or because, like in the case of NY, the cheating party was going to win without the fraud so there was no need to bother.
That fact that the party committed a lot of fraud should negate the whole election and people given a chance to vote for candidates from a cleaned up version of that party, a new party from its ashes or a series of independent candidates leaning in that party’s direction (i.e., liberal or progressive) and the party that did not commit fraud.
—Although given some Pubs role in committing fraud it gets a bit complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
