Q Anon: 11/21/18 Trust Trump's Plan

qmap.pub ^ | 11/21/18 | FReepers, vanity

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

That would explain A LOT regarding Linda’s attitude at McNoName’s memorial.

We have it all.

[greeneyes]

Take a peek at Q Drop #2261:
PANIC IN DC
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal TARMAC [BC]?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal COMEY HRC EMAIL CASE?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal HUSSEIN instructions re: HRC EMAIL CASE?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal BRENNAN NO NAME COORD TO FRAME POTUS?
……………..
FISA = START
FISA BRINGS DOWN THE HOUSE.
WHEN DO BIRDS SING?
Q
*******************************************************************************
It occurs to me, that the handle: HRC EMAIL CASE, badly misnames what was really going on. Installing a private server to do what she did was not a simple EMAIL CASE.

And now the DERP media is deliberately using the same terminology wrt Ivanka-big difference. So the HRC needs a different handle. I’m trying to figure one out. Anyone have any good ideas that we might use?

[mairdie]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-was-right-to-send-troops-to-our-border-presidents-of-both-parties-have-done-it

Trump was right to send troops to our border – Presidents of both parties have done it

Gen. Anthony J. Tata

From the comments on Lucianne:
To those who have no knowledge of history, or those who choose to ignore history, everything is new, without precedent, and too often subject to criticism.

FTA:
...
In 1989, President George H.W. Bush deployed U.S. military forces to the border to work in concert with the Border Patrol to strengthen our defenses against increasingly problematic infiltrators. This organization was named Task Force 6, now Task Force North, and has continuously provided the U.S. Border Patrol with intelligence, support and necessary shows of force.
...
Why does President Trump now receive criticism for securing our borders? Three reasons:

First, whatever President Trump does, the left reflexively supports the opposing position.
...
Second, the progressive left no longer sees America as the beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
...
Third, progressives view every success achieved by President Trump as the further unraveling of President Obama’s legacy.
...
Remember the “fundamental change” Obama promised? That change was the dismantling of American ideals.

The left’s plaintive wail today is not only the echoing sound of protesters kneeling in the streets and screaming on November 9, 2016 – the day after President Trump was elected; it is also the sound of the aircraft carrier turning on a dime.
...

[mairdie]

And they have the nerve to call Trump Hitler?????

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/23/merkel-eu-hand-sovereignty-brussels/

Merkel: EU States Must Prepare to Hand National Sovereignty over to Brussels

FTA:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that European Union (EU) member states must be prepared to transfer powers over to Brussels at a debate on the ‘tensions’ between globalisation and national sovereignty.

“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty,” Merkel said, speaking at an event organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin on Wednesday.

“In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel said, explaining that — while Germany had given up some of its sovereignty in order to join the EU, national parliaments were in charge of deciding whether to sign up to international treaties.

Trust and the willingness to compromise are vital in addressing tensions between sovereignty and globalisation, asserted the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leader, highlighting the controversial UN migration pact, debate over which has continued to split her own party.

Merkel condemned the fact that, in discussions over whether Germany should join a fast-growing number of nations pulling out of the agreement, “there were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.

[mairdie]

Tried to excerpt but there was so little fluff that I couldn’t bear to.

https://www.city-journal.org/devos-title-ix-regulations

Feminists’ Undue Process

Heather Mac Donald

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings gave the public a crash course in campus-rape ideology. It is about to get another. Last week, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released a proposed federal rule that corrects the worst procedural abuses of campus-rape tribunals. It hews closely to judicial precedent and is fair to all parties, yet the feminist establishment has reacted with hysteria, characterizing the draft regulation as an assault on sexual-assault “survivors.” Maintenance of the campus-rape myth, it turns out, is incompatible with due process. Whether feminism itself is compatible with Enlightenment values appears increasingly doubtful.

Opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination was based on the principle that self-professed “survivors” must be believed and that accused males must be condemned, regardless of the paucity of evidence against them. That principle, already ubiquitous on college campuses, got an assist from the federal government in 2011, when the Obama administration released a so-called guidance (an informal federal directive of murky legal status) on college rape proceedings. The guidance strongly discouraged cross-examination of the accuser and required schools to use the lowest possible standard of proof for finding a defendant guilty of sexual assault. It promulgated a broad definition of actionable sexual harassment—“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—that ignored relevant Supreme Court precedent and that would extend to an unwanted request for a date. Since 2011, due-process deficiencies in campus-rape proceedings have become ever more widespread. Colleges routinely deny defendants the opportunity to review all the evidence, fail to provide an impartial decision-maker, and ignore the presumption of innocence. The accused is regularly forbidden the assistance of counsel. In 2014, a Title IX officer at Washington and Lee University issued a lugubrious warning to a male student—“a lawyer can’t help you here”—before expelling him for sexual assault.

The proposed Education Department regulation tries to end these abuses. Ironically, in an administration regularly charged with ignoring the law, the DOE has carefully followed the legal framework for promulgating new federal rules. The 2011 Obama guidance was issued as a fait accompli; Donald Trump’s DOE, by contrast, is giving the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule before it becomes final.

And the feminist establishment is responding as it does to any challenge to its ideological hegemony: with an attack of the vapors. The manager of Know Your IX, an advocacy group, first heard about the new regulation in a grocery store and sank to the ground in shock, she said. How her fellow shoppers viewed this Victorian swoon is unknown, but it recalls the flight of MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins when Harvard’s then-president Larry Summers was discussing the unequal sex distribution of high-end math skills. Hopkins would have thrown up had she stayed in the room, she later explained. NARAL, the abortion-rights group, tweeted that the new campus-rape tribunal rule was “absolutely sickening.”

It is the extension of due-process rights to males accused of sexual assault that sickens the activists. In their view of justice, due process is zero-sum: if a male receives procedural rights, the female accuser must by definition lose hers. “These changes are designed to flip Title IX on its head and give rights to accused students when Title IX was supposed to be protecting those experiencing sexual discrimination,” a senior staff attorney with SurvJustice told the Chronicle of Higher Education. The University of California’s Office of the President warned that the “rights of the most vulnerable among us are under attack.” But due-process protections are not mutually exclusive; both parties can possess them. What the advocates really mean is that defendants should have essentially no rights.

The proposed rule requires schools to allow cross-examination, but only carried out by an advisor to the defendant; the defendant himself must stay silent and off-stage. This substitution is a concession to maudlin #BelieveSurvivors victimology, whereby the student casualties of rape culture are in constant danger of being “retraumatized” by contact with their assailant. Forbidding the accused himself from questioning his accuser is problematic, however, since some students will not be able to afford an attorney and a friend may not be skilled enough to test an accuser’s story adequately. Cross-examination conducted by defendants themselves was the norm until the nineteenth century, when lawyers took over trials.

This compromise has availed nothing, however. Any cross-examination is “likely to jeopardize the rights and safety of student survivors,” the Center for American Progress announced. The senior legal counsel for the Victim Rights Law Center explained to the Chronicle of Higher Education that “rape is about power and control and not about sexual desire. Therefore, it is a bad idea to give the person with the power even more power to intimidate and hurt the victim.” Actually, drunken hook-up sex is about lust, period. The male could not care less if his partner for the evening becomes student-body president tomorrow, so long as she removes her panties tonight.

More importantly, cross-examination is not about “intimidating and hurting the victim.” It is about establishing the fact of victimhood in the first place. All of the advocates’ arguments against cross-examination presume that the accuser was in fact a rape “survivor” and the accused a sexual assailant, without the need for any further proof. This a priori certainty is incompatible with centuries of experience regarding the uncertain epistemological status of accusations and memory, not to mention the well-documented personal motives that have driven campus-rape allegations, such as having just cheated on a boyfriend or feeling jealousy about a partner’s new girlfriend. The narcissism that sees cross–examination as simply about “intimidating” the victim rather than about establishing the truth is typical of feminist identity politics, whereby all ideas are judged by one litmus test: are they good or bad for females?

The senior vice president of the American Council on Education produced the most self-damning argument against the proposed regulation. “Colleges and universities are not courts,” Terry Hartle told the New York Times, “and these sorts of proceedings would require us to legalize student disciplinary proceedings. We lack the knowledge, the expertise, and credibility to do this.”

Hartle may be right—but if a college lacks the knowledge and expertise to manage such basic truth-finding functions as cross-examination, it should be out of the rape-adjudication business entirely. The lack of “credibility” that Hartle and other administrators should be worried about is the one affecting their findings of guilt.

Predictably, the advocates object to the higher standard of proof allowed, but not required, by the proposed regulation. Under the new rule, colleges can continue to use the low “preponderance of evidence” standard for campus rape, so long as that standard governs other disciplinary proceedings. They will inevitably do so. Being convicted of campus rape is no big deal, say the activists, so why force an accuser to establish her case by “clear and convincing evidence?” These are the same avengers who have destroyed careers over a pat on the butt or a predilection for adolescent sexual humor. Yet we are supposed to believe that they will let bygones be bygones when a student falsely convicted of campus rape tries to enter the job market.

Finally, the advocates gripe about DeVos’s insistence on the presumption of innocence. According to the Center for American Progress, this atavistic tic grows out of Trump’s rhetoric against the #MeToo movement, which has “stoked the sentiment” that men are being put on trial without due process. Had the Democrats held the reins of power in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate, Judge Kavanaugh himself would have been unable to overcome the feminist presumption of sexual guilt.

DeVos went out of her way to adopt key features of the feminist worldview. The materials accompanying the proposed rule refer to “survivors,” whose alleged suffering “often” prevents them from finishing their education. (You wouldn’t know this from female graduation rates, which are much higher than for males.) DeVos itemizes the extensive support services that colleges should offer “survivors,” from modifications of class schedules to highly sought-after deadline extensions. Many of those measures—such as escorts and increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the campus—play into the fiction that predatory rapists furtively roam college grounds, hoping to pounce in the dark. In fact, most of the “rapes” in question are foreseeable and avoidable events, the result of deliberate participation in drunken hook-ups with a chosen partner.

DeVos’s adoption of bathos-drenched “survivor” rhetoric earned her no credit with the campus-rape establishment. And her bulking up of due-process protections, however necessary in light of current campus conditions, amounts to nothing more than a Band-Aid on a festering sore. The solution to what is called campus rape is a change of culture from one of entitled promiscuity to one of personal responsibility. In the absence of such norms as prudence, restraint, and respect, the bureaucracy, extending all the way up to the federal government, has happily rushed in to fill the void. The weirdest aspect of the campus sex scene is this bureaucratization of coitus, which once nominally rebellious students now self-righteously demand.

Feminists fight a rebirth of sexual prudence, however, as fiercely as they fight traditional safeguards against false convictions. As the feminist takeover of mainstream institutions continues (despite the Trump interregnum), the future of such Western ideals as the rule of reason and impartial adjudication looks grim.

[smileyface]

HRC Treason ???

[thinden]

Indeed, thinden. I think you have the truth of it. She could indeed “bring it down.”

Take a peek at Q Drop #2261:

PANIC IN DC
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal TARMAC [BC]?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal COMEY HRC EMAIL CASE?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal HUSSEIN instructions re: HRC EMAIL CASE?
[LL] talking = TRUTH reveal BRENNAN NO NAME COORD TO FRAME POTUS?
……………..
FISA = START
FISA BRINGS DOWN THE HOUSE.
WHEN DO BIRDS SING?
Q

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

thanx for the dig

[bassyak]

Small consolation, but at least they didn’t do it for free. ;-D
...like so many others did...

[JockoManning]

I’m not particularly studied on the topic. However, what I’ve read was pretty convincing that the DU was a serious and confirmed factor in the ill health issues of the servicemen, their sexual partners, their children, grandchildren & great grandchildren. The government was not going to be unnecessarily on the hook for many billions of dollars for no reason.

[JockoManning]

Feminists fight a rebirth of sexual prudence, however, as fiercely as they fight traditional safeguards against false convictions. As the feminist takeover of mainstream institutions continues (despite the Trump interregnum), the future of such Western ideals as the rule of reason and impartial adjudication looks grim.

Your entire post is well & importantly written about the outrageousness & hypocritical stupidities of REGRESSIVES' demands and what excuse they have for an ethos.

Thanks.

[JockoManning]

Not doing it for free when the Klintoons are involved might be enriching . . . but the risk of being that close to the horrific evildoers is considerable, too.

[EMI_Guy]

We now have pretty solid info determining HRC set that server(s) up as a portal to either send state secrets TO bad actors, or bad actors were allowed IN to rummage around as they please. An espionagical flea market.

How about HRC’s “CIB”...Classified Information Buffet? “All the poop you care to scoop!”

I know: pretty lame-o...

[9YearLurker]

The guv should not be involved in this carp at all—rules one way or another. Just get them out of university funding. Period.

[haffast]

"""Neglected to ping anyone else to this info which has link on A. KHASHOGGI and BARRICK Gold, CIA, 9/11 ETC."""

Obama’s drone war is a shameful part of his legacy

By James Downie - May 5, 2016

"And as retired Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said last year, “When you drop a bomb from a drone . . . you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good,” including more radicalized terrorists."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-is-a-shameful-part-of-his-legacy/2016/05/05/a727eea8-12ea-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html?utm_term=.a185bfd3f4e9

Mr. Obama, please enclose your Nobel Peace Prize medal in the pre-addressed envelop and drop in any mailbox.

MbS, you are not to defend your country from [They].

Precision-guided syringes limit collateral damage to innocents.

MbS more compassionate than Obama and did it with less cost?

It's a sorry, sorry world.

[9YearLurker]

And what does that say about Kelly, as he largest supporter?

[9YearLurker]

Sessions bowed to recusal pressure once and would probably do so again.

[USMC79to83]

Curiouser and curiouser....

Zero Hedge has this article posted: MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe

Pull quote: ... Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true. That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious.

Reference a piece in "The Telegraph"

Zero Hedge Article: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-23/mi6-scrambling-stop-trump-releasing-classified-docs-russia-probe

The Telegraph Article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/21/exc-mi6-battling-donald-trump-release-classified-russia-probe/amp/

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

Re: Sally Quinn and the Breitbart article on her witchcraft - her is another article from around the same time:

https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/sally-quinn-occult-hexes.html

“Quinn also admitted to placing three hexes, which ended in the deaths of the unfortunate receivers of said hexes. The first was for a woman her boyfriend had checked out at a party and the last was for a “shady psychic.” And in between was none other than Clay Felker — founder of New York Magazine — who “oversaw a brutal profile of Quinn in 1973.”

She gave up hexes for good following the psychic’s death, though she says she still gets requests: “You can’t imagine the number of people who have asked me to put a hex on Donald Trump — I mean, I have got friends lined up. This is my biggest restraint now.”

Just because she says she hasn’t done it in this article doesn’t mean others haven’t.

[haffast]

[haffast]