|
Posted on 04/30/2025 9:00:22 PM PDT by ransomnote
Many come here to read dispatches from the War between Good and Evil, to red-pill and encourage.....and to pray and give thanks to the God who fights for us.
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.
3038 Mar 12, 2019 2:55:14 PM EDT
Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 4fe510 No. 5643022>Decide for yourself (be free from outside opinion).
>Decide for yourself (be objective in your conclusions).
>Decide for yourself (be true in your own beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be open to following the facts).
>Decide for yourself (be strong in defending your beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements).
>Decide for yourself (be free)
Those who attack you.
Those who mock you.
Those who cull you.
Those who control you.
Those who label you.
Do they represent you?
Or, do they represent themselves (in some form)?
Mental Enslavement.
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
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
No doubt the framework & construction of the United Nations is a perennial question for some people,somewhere, including us.
It is, also, presently the only table where Russia has a seat to be heard. Any one of five nations can reject a point of view from Russia, or any other among them, and an appeal becomes mute.
Taking that into account has rather codified the Russia-UKR war. The US-led Western nations were all together culpable in the causes of it, and now Europeans without remorse, for a lost a generation of Ukrainian young men, try to embark on continuance.
Another suicidal period & Zelensky seems to relish for his acting career.
Awesome 👍 👍 👍 👍
and the intro music; Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj1QOz3iuCE
😁😁😁😁
PDJT takes a sledgehammer to things, that’s for sure; everyone was applauding at that song 😀
They knew he was well paid❗ 💰💰💰
👍👍👍👍👍
I’m sir, here’s a link.
The White House shows a wave by the Crown Prince.
That wave occurred during Trump’s speech. It was never shown to be during Greenwood belting out, “Proud to Be an American”, on the Live coverage I was viewing.
It’s possible I had shut my eyes and missed it, for wondering what the Saudis & other guests were thinking.
:) Same here!
God likes to show the wonders of nature and His world...
(that and He doesn’t want you to be bored 😉 )
🐷
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think you’re on to something
Trump’s Historic Speech in Saudi Arabia
_____________________________________
And there was Elon Musk seated in the row immediately behind and to the left of the Crown Prince. Fascinating.
“Call me Mister.”
Or, ‘I’m sir’.” 🤣
— Sidney Poitier
He says I need a better phone screen editor. 😉
“Afrikaners, descended from white settlers in South Africa, as refugees”
:: What a crap sentence that is, with no context ::
Sometimes, you have to SHOW them.
...the hypocrisy.
Just checked.
There is a FReeper “Mr.Tibbs”
Freaky how they keep doing this
This is what I think. Not sure exactly why, but whatever the reason, Dems think it would benefit themselves***
The Demo'Rats are building their justification for civil war - same as 1861. 💥
This 'party' should have been fairly dealt with in 1865❗
ThankQ LJ for the links!
Pingout!
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4314335/posts?page=2410#2410
Also
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4316781/posts
. . .
Found way BTT, about that Alien Enemies Act :
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16V3AeKWeT/
“
BREAKING: Federal Judge Stephanie Haines just ruled that President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members satisfies the law.
“Second, the Court finds that the Proclamation and the documents it references support the finding that TdA is committing a “predatory incursion” as that term is defined in the AEA. Indeed, an FTO is a cohesive group of individuals united by a common goal of causing significant disruption to the common safety of the public...”
“Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Proclamation meets the definition of ‘predatory incursion’ under the AEA, and the Court finds that A.S.R. has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits on this issue.”
Good to see not all our judges have sold their souls to the devil.
HT George via x
“
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 05/01/2025 Vol.507, Q Day 2742, Keflavik76 wrote: As I recall a lot of UN resolutions have gone against Israel on the basis of human rights but they are non-binding. They may damage a nations prestige rating but nothing like the harm done in a Paradox grand stragedy game. Cletus.D.Yokel had an interesting response to my post this morning: It is important to note (because it follows the ‘playbook’) that those who appear to beg for arrest are of minority status.
They're still playing the old and worn race card against a shiny new Trump card.
I asked my desktop Co-Pilot for a bit of clarity:
If the UN decides to take action against the US on human rights grounds can the US veto:
The United States has veto power in the United Nations Security Council, meaning it can block any substantive resolution, including those related to human rights violations, if they are brought before the Security Council.
However, human rights issues are often addressed in the UN General Assembly or the UN Human Rights Council, where no single country has veto power. In these forums, resolutions can be passed without the US being able to block them outright, though they are typically non-binding and serve as recommendations rather than enforceable actions.
Co-Pilot chimes in on the numerous anti Israel resolutions:
The United Nations General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council have passed numerous resolutions criticizing Israel’s actions, particularly regarding human rights and territorial disputes.
Key Points About These Resolutions:
Most are non-binding – Unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions do not have direct enforcement mechanisms.
Often symbolic – They serve as diplomatic statements rather than actionable orders.
Security Council resolutions – These could be more impactful but are often vetoed by the US, which has historically defended Israel at the UN.
Israel has frequently dismissed these resolutions, arguing that they reflect political bias, while its critics view them as important statements on human rights violations.
Love that video of the cat hugging the lost, but found dog. Cats feel deeply.
I do feel the Dems are play acting outrages to invoke the UN, in one form or another. I keep trying to find an old article I posted to FR wherein the UN sent foreign troops to an island nation to prop up coup forces but am finding everything else instead.That article was hard to find the first time - the UN doesn't like critique.
Reading through the UN 'article 42' and 'Chapter VII resolutions' has damaged brain cells.
There's also article 51 (Self Defense):
The United States used Article 51 to justify the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against an Iran-backed militia group.[19]
The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, cited Article 51 in a speech to justify the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and escalation of the war in Donbas.[20][21]
'note: And the mysterious article 53 to which Wiki devotes one vague line:
"Article 53 permits "the Security Council to use regional arrangements as appropriate or to authorize enforcement action by such arrangements".[22]"
'note: At the linked source:
The UN, NATO, and International Law After Kosovo
"NATO's decision on 13 October 1998 to use force in Yugoslavia 1 and its subsequent use of force beginning on 24 March 1999 2 were inconsistent with both the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and Security Council practice. Most of NATO's member states have argued that the situation was exceptional and should have no bearing on the future need for Security Council authorization. Not so the United States; US officials have not spoken of an exception. Several high-ranking officials of the Clinton Administration have stated that they do not recognize the necessity for Security Council authorization when NATO takes enforcement action. 3"
'note: So maybe the Dems see a path to activating troops, even if it requires 'creative interpretation' as in Kosovo.
During Trump's first term, Pelosi et. al were representing the Presidency as the threat to the nation as they are again doing now. In that instance, to 'save us all' the UN would not wait for the US to approve their intervention. Formally, if the UN Security Council got involved, the US would not be given a vote as it is a party to the contention.
The UN seems designed to destroy Israel and freedom around the world. Part of the New World Order.
United Nations rewrites Balfour Declaration parliamentary debate records
There are numerous actions against Israel; everything the 'progresive left' wants, the UN is pushing for.
United Nations Adopts Resolution Calling Israel’s Founding a ‘Catastrophe’
From Wiki:
The United Nations has authorized 71 peacekeeping operations as of April 2018. These do not include interventions authorized by the UN like the Korean War and the Gulf War.1] The 1990s saw the most UN peacekeeping operations to date. Peacekeeping operations are overseen by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and share some common characteristics, namely the inclusion of a military or police component, often with an authorization for use of force under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.[2] Peacekeeping operations are distinct from special political missions (SPMs), which are overseen by the Department of Political Affairs (DPA). SPMs are not included in the table below.[3][4][5]
Elsewhere from Wiki:
Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council ('note: China, France, UK, Russia, US). Otherwise, that chapter is used when the UNSC is authorizing either a member state or a coalition of the willing to act nationally or through regional organizations to address this threat – if necessary with all necessary measures, including the use of outright force. The phrase ‘all necessary measures’ is to be taken literally. Any military action performed through land, air, and sea forces is specifically allowed (UN Charter Article 42). Such action could entail troop deployment, the enforcement of a no-fly-zone, even the use of aerial bombardment.[1]SNIP
These broad powers allow it to enjoy greater power than any other international organization in history. It can be argued that the strong executive powers granted to it give it the role of 'executive of the international community'[3] or even of an 'international government'.[2][4]
'note: At the link for these last two citations, it looks like 'non binding' pertains to whether or not the member states are required to act upon decisions. The UN is based on (replaced) the League of Nations, which had obligated nations to act (fight, send troops)":
"....even without prior decision by the council to take action against states that acted unlawfully in the eyes of the League's Covenant.[5] This meant that the peace process was largely dependent on the willingness of member states, because the Covenant of the League of Nations did not provide binding decisions;"
SNIP
"This resulted in an unprecedented will by both the powers at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference and the states present at the San Francisco Conference to submit to a central organ like that of the Security Council. Despite long debate over whether the General Assembly should also have power over decisions made by the Security Council, it was eventually decided by a large majority vote[7] that the Security Council should maintain its executive power...
'note: It looks like, based on information at the link, the UN Security council can function independently of the General Assembly.
10 temporary members of the UN Security Council are:
- Algeria (2025)
- Denmark (2026)
- Greece (2026)
- Guyana (2025)
- Pakistan (2026)
- Panama (2026)
- Republic of Korea (2025)
- Sierra Leone (2025)
- Slovenia (2025)
- Somalia (2026)
Here are the voting rules for the UN Security Council (US wouldn't get a vote, but Russia might?). With Russia Russia Russia and accusations Trump colluded with Russia, the black hats may have been moving against Russian participation in UN votes:
Vote and Majority Required
Article 27 of the UN Charter states that:
- Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
- Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
- Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
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.
