Quote:Remind yourself of ‘America First’… read the speech then pair it with the Laws and Orders in place that outline this all taking place.

45 DASH 47 ?????

(04-29-2024, 01:50 AM)guyfriday Wrote: So here's a great video about these Simpson Predictions that a lot of people need to see. The youtuber is a big Simpsons Fan, and does a massive take down on the fake predictions like those above. 
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QasSjUjdrPI]

My take on this is that the video re-enforces the importance of vetting your data as well as your sources especially when it comes to all things -Q-. We shouldn't forget that Alex Soros has made it his thing to attack Conspiracy Theorists and has taken a singular interest in -Q- and the followers of it.

(04-29-2024, 10:03 AM)duncanhidao Wrote: I'm afraid my Simpsons quote was misunderstood.
In my opinion the probability of there being an event tomorrow is the same as the Simpsons predictions.
Zero!
How do I make Spok say "That hardly seems likely"

(04-29-2024, 05:27 AM)Crazierfox Wrote: nuttin happening[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMRxxHcXQAA6ZSJ?format=jpg&name=large]
[Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-CHPxbaZWLk]
Happy Monday

Quote: A few weeks ago, my wife came across a series of articles written by an anonymous blogger, who raised the possibility that President Trump's administration has been secretly preserved by the US military, through a process known as "devolution".
I realize that this idea may seem incredible and that many people who have not been able to mentally accept Trump's electoral defeat have become convinced that he has, somehow, managed to remain President. In their minds, Trump is still occupying the Oval Office, while Biden is on a TV set somewhere. This is not that kind of theory. Instead, it is the logical conclusion one can arrive at when an enormous amount of research has been done.
The word “devolution”, when used in a governmental context, refers to the delegation of power from a central government to regional or local entities. As far as this discussion goes, the concept suggests that Trump and the military have created regional centers of government authority and that this fact is known only to those directly involved. Several people have published documents and linked key events in support of the idea that Trump has set up a mechanism in which he remains Commander in Chief, even if Joe Biden appears to be President.
The premise that Trump could have done such a thing is based on the idea that America has been fighting an undeclared war with China since at least January 2020. Trump has stated on several occasions that when China allowed the COVID-19 to get out of Wuhan, committed an act of war. When the United States is at war – even if war is not declared – the President has greater powers than he would have in peacetime. These powers do not require congressional approval and are many times used without the public's knowledge. The President may, in time of war, take any measure he deems necessary to save the Republic.
The “devolution” theory revolves around several presidential memoranda, executive orders, and strange national security-related personnel changes that occurred in 2020. The key elements involved would be Chris Miller, Kash Patel and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who worked at the Pentagon and the National Counterterrorism Center both before and after the elections.
It is central to the theory of “devolution” that Trump knew that the election would be influenced by a foreign power and that he would have considered it an act of war. As a counter-move, he would have previously and secretly taken steps to invalidate the election result. The countermeasures would only be known to a small number of people, but they would still serve to make him the true Commander in Chief. The decision would be made to make the public believe that Joe Biden is the President, but, at a later date, the public would be informed of the truth.
Furthermore, the theory proposes that some key military assets in the country are secretly on Trump's side, while the bulk of the military believes Biden is calling the shots. At some future time – perhaps when incontrovertible evidence of election fraud has been made public – the military and Trump would make their disclosure.
One objection to the theory concerns the adoption of “woke” ideologies [positions now dominant on the American left, which actually aim to foment racial division and which still see “whites” as fundamentally racist and “non-whites” as victims, editor's note] by military leaders. Critics say the military has gone soft and would not support Trump today. America's military personnel comprise approximately one million people who come from all walks of life, espouse different ideologies, and have loyalties to different things. It is a gross and oversimplification to say that “the military is corrupt” or that “the military is left-wing”. The military apparatus is highly compartmentalized. The ideologies and loyalties of one group are not universally shared by other groups.
Special Operations team members are selected from a large number of competitors based on specific criteria such as loyalty. You find no “woke” ideologies propagated among their ranks. These men and women are Patriots, and the “devolution” articles suggest that these are the very people Trump is working with.
Below, the links to Patel's work Patriot and the articles on "devolution" he wrote
Patel Patriot's Telegram chat: https://t.me/patelpatriotchat
Patel Patriot's Devolution Series https://patelpatriot.substack.com/archive?sort=new
https://www.devolution.link/

Quote:We continue the discussion on the theory of "devolution" (according to which, in America, presidential power would never really have passed into the hands of Joe Biden, which, in our opinion, corresponds to the reality of the facts) by delving into some fundamental technical aspects that give substance to the discussion.
During a national emergency, the President of the United States is granted exceptional powers. The United States is still under a state of national emergency, pursuant to Executive Order No. 13848 of September 12, 2018, entitled “Executive Order on the imposition of certain sanctions for foreign interference in a United States election”. On September 10, 2020, the Executive Order was extended for one year due to the “unusual and extraordinary threat to national security.”
During a “catastrophic national emergency,” the President can appoint a temporary “shadow government.” The creation of a “shadow government” requires that some key individuals in the ERG (“Emergency Relocation Group”) be moved to secondary locations to run the government (the “shadow government” was activated, for example, by President Bush immediately after the September 11 attacks).
If a national emergency occurs in the Capital Region, the National Continuity Plan provides the detailed strategy for mass evacuation and relocation of every agency of the federal government, the White House and the military.
President Trump can also use the powers of two of Obama's Executive Orders to protect the Nation:
The power to requisition all national resources and recruit citizens (E.O. of March 2012)
The power of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security, the equivalent of the Department of the Interior) to take control of private communications networks (E.O. of July 2012)
The federal government has established 4 levels of COGCON (Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions):
- COGCON4 = normal conditions with periodic exercises
- COGCON3 = the teams in charge of each agency and department prepare the alternative sites, carrying out tests of the communications and electronic infrastructures and keeping themselves constantly informed on the location of managers and senior managers
- COGCON2 = deployment of 50-75% of the continuity staff members of the Emergency Relocation Group to alternative locations. Assessment of their ability to conduct operations and their preparedness to perform the essential functions of their organizations in the event of a catastrophic emergency
- COGCON1 = full deployment of designated leadership and continuity personnel to perform the essential functions of relevant organizations from alternate locations either as a result of or in preparation for a catastrophic event
Interestingly, every year the US Government “secretly” lowers the COGCON level from 4 to 3 at the State of the Union address, when government leadership is concentrated in a single location.
On January 19, 2021 (the day before Trump left the White House), Dave Troy, a serious journalist and anything but a Trump supporter, began posting on Twitter that many people had been notified that the level of COGCON had been lowered to 2. After a series of checks, the lowering of the COGCON level to 2 was confirmed. For us it is an important indication of the implementation of "devolution", with the real government moving to alternative locations, while a "facade" government remained in Washington.
We now come to more strictly military aspects and talk about the chain of command. To understand how “devolution” can be activated through military means, it is important to understand the chain of command within the Department of Defense. It all starts from the top, represented by the President, who is the commander in chief of the armed forces. The second figure in the line of command is the Secretary of Defense, then come the Combatant Commanders. It is important to note that all the Generals who work at the Pentagon, i.e. the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the Joint Chiefs of Staff) are excluded from the chain of command and have mainly an advisory function. Combatant Commands (COCOMs), also known as Unified Combatant Commands, are the highest possible level of military command. There are 11 COCOMs in total and they are distinguished by geographical area or function of competence. There are 7 geographical COCOMS (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Indo-Pacific Region, Space), the functional ones are 4 (Special Operations, Strategic, Transport, IT).

Quote:To acquire the rank of Combatant Commander, a 4-star general must be recommended by the Secretary of Defense, nominated for the position by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and formally commissioned, upon order of the President, by the Secretary of Defense.
Of the current 11 Combatant Commanders, 10 were appointed by President Trump, the eleventh (Admiral John C. Aquilino for the Indo-Pacific Region) by Joe Biden. How to reconcile the Commander appointed by Biden with the theory of "devolution"? The key is that Admiral Aquilino oversaw the promotion in June of this year of Charles A. Flynn, brother of General Mike Flynn, to commander of the US military in the Pacific: given that General Flynn's family is, beyond any doubt, a family of Patriots, it follows that the figure of Biden only served as a "facade" for the nomination of Aquilino.
The Combatant Commanders would play a fundamental role in the "devolution": the only people who should know about the activation of the "devolution", in addition to the President and the Secretary of Defense, are the Combatant Commanders and only in the next phase, that of the "revelation" ” to the public, they should provide specific information to their subordinates. Each Combatant Commander reports directly to the Secretary of Defense.
If Trump Secretary of Defense Chris Miller received information regarding foreign interference in the presidential election to the extent that it profoundly altered the outcome, he would be obligated to share the evidence in his possession with every Combatant Commander. These would have recognized the illegitimacy of the incoming administration and the contingent plan, that of "devolution", would have been activated.
Now let's see, in chronological order, how the "battlefield" of the elections was prepared.
- 8 May 2018: the IT Command was elevated from a subunit of the Strategic Command to the rank of COCOM
- July 23, 2018: General Paul Nakasone (head of the NSA and Cyber Command) confirms that he has created a task force to counter Russian cyber threats. Nakasone states that a cyber attack on critical US facilities should be considered an act of war and would therefore trigger a response. Since 2017, the American electoral system has been classified as a critical structure
- August 16, 2018: The New York Times publishes the article “Trump, seeking to loosen rules on cyber attacks on the US, reverses Obama's directives”. The article shows that Trump has cut federal bodies out of decisions relating to the response to cyber attacks, giving autonomy of action to the military
- September 10, 2018: the Council of Foreign Relations confirms, in a rather critical comment, that the Cyber Command now has decision-making autonomy in the case of cyber attacks on critical facilities
- April 29, 2019: the news is published that the task force called “Small Russian Group” has become permanent
- July 23, 2019: General Nakasone announces that the NSA is creating a cybersecurity directorate
- September 7, 2019: the NSA prepares to defend the 2020 elections, taking inspiration from what happened in 2018
- December 20, 2019: The US Space Force is officially the sixth branch of the American Armed Forces
- February 10, 2020: Department of Defense publishes article “DoD Has Permanent Role in Defending Elections”
- August 8, 2020: the Department of Defense leaks that the threat of interference in the elections also comes from China and Iran
- December 9, 2020: It is officially announced that the Space Force has become the 18th member of the United States intelligence agency community. The Space Force, through control of satellites, played an important role in capturing data relating to attacks and interference in the electoral system
The picture presented so far leaves us convinced that the theory of "devolution" is the one that best explains the many anomalies of the current American and global situation.
Sources:
https://twitter.com/aspfrt/status/1351324658264657920
https://patelpatriot.substack.com/p/devolution-part-9

Quote:So far we have linked "devolution" (i.e. the continuity of the US Government in the event that hostile powers or powers have managed to take over the institutional summits) mainly to the military apparatus, but a careful study of the documents authorizes us to think bigger .
On December 7, 2020, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13961 “Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience,” which was issued at the same time as the “Federal Mission Resilience Strategy 2020.” of federal representation 2020]. We will see that the entire devolution picture is in the federal registers, visible to all, from 7 December 2020.
EO 13961 was issued, as can be seen from the text itself, under the authority of the National Security Act of 1947, which immediately places it not in a context relating to "natural disasters", but in that of "war and defense national”: the entire basis of the EO is continuity of government precisely in the latter case. The EO refers to Presidential Policy Directive-40, issued by Obama, which, although secret in its specific contents, is known to deal with the continuity of National Essential Functions (NEFs) through: Continuity of Operations (COOP), Continuity of Government (COG) and Permanent Constitutional Government (ECG).
This is the list of National Essential Functions (NEFs):
NEF 1: Maintain continuity of government, including three separate branches (legislative, executive and judiciary)
NEF 2: Provide visible national leadership and maintain the trust of the American people
NEF 3: Defend the USA from all enemies, external and internal, and prevent attacks
NEF 4: Maintain effective relationships with other nations
NEF 5: Maintain internal security and action against crime
NEF 6: Maintain the capacity for prompt response in the event of disasters or attacks
NEF 7: Protect and stabilize the national economy and maintain confidence in the national financial system
NEF 8: Provide adequate levels of service in the areas of health, safety and welfare
The aforementioned Executive Order and related “strategy” document are primarily focused on executive branch resistance; in particular, the Executive Order establishes the creation of an Executive Committee, composed of the following institutional figures (we report in brackets the name of who was in office at the time of publication of the document):
Secretary of Defense (Christopher Miller)
Secretary of Homeland Security (Chad Wolf)
Director of National Intelligence (John Ratcliffe)
National Security Advisor (Robert O'Brien)
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (Tony Ornato)
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Russell Vought)
Additional member present only when his skills are required:
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Kevin Droegemeir)
The Executive Committee serves to facilitate the execution of the continuity plan and other related policies, to advise the President on the aforementioned issues, to establish subordinate coordination bodies (where appropriate), to coordinate the work of the agencies under the continuity plan continuity.
To recap: Executive Order 13961 arose from Trump's war powers and provides guidelines for executing a "continuity plan." It also tells us that there are subordinate bodies and working groups that support the Executive Committee and its work in executing the plan. He also says that the Executive Committee's liaison with the President is the Chief of Staff (who at the time was Mark Meadows).
The EO establishes that the National Security Advisor (then O'Brien) is designated as National Continuity Coordinator and that, in turn, he can transfer this function to a person designated by him.
Executive Order 13961 also contains a modification to Executive Order 13618, issued by Obama, on communications security during emergency situations.
While Obama's Executive Order originally placed executive branch communications under the control of numerous agencies in cases of emergency or national security, Trump's changes place this control in the hands of the Director of the Office of Science Policy. and Technology (which, we remind you, is part of the Executive Committee of EO 13961) and replace the Executive Committee of EO 13618 with that of EO 13961. We are therefore witnessing a decisive centralization of the crucial aspect of emergency communications to the restricted circle established by Trump's Executive Order that we have examined so far.

Quote:Let's now take a more in-depth look at the document "Federal Mission Resilience Strategy 2020", which opens with an introductory letter from Trump himself. He states that the US' adversaries will not fight in the terms most congenial to America, but will move on a threshold that will remain below armed conflict and that the document in question serves to keep the Constitutional Government alive in any circumstances, predictable or not.
In this letter Trump outlined what he was already preparing to do, otherwise it would have made no sense to publish such a document a month and a half before leaving the White House.
The "Strategy" document was developed in response to the directive of the Committee of Directors of the National Security Council (NSCPC). Let us now delve deeper into this committee. On April 4, 2017, Trump issued a presidential memorandum in which he invoked the National Security Act of 1947, which we have already mentioned above and which is found in the “War and National Defense” section of the United States Code. The memorandum states that, under this 1947 law, the National Security Council (NSC) is responsible for advising the President in integrating foreign, domestic, and military policies as they relate to national security. Let us briefly mention that Trump and O’Brien purged the NSC of deep state elements in February 2020. The NSCPC is defined as a ministerial-level interagency forum that is responsible for evaluating policy issues that interfere with national security. Trump then issued EO 13961 and the concurrent Government Continuity Strategy document not only under the 1947 law designed for war situations, but also under the direction of the highest-level national security policy group. It bears repeating that what we are witnessing is an indication of a military operation in the form of a plan for continuity of government, and that the plan was formulated to guarantee the continuity of the executive in a specific situation, the war situation.
Now let's see who was part of the NSCPC at the time of the issuance of EO 13961:
National Security Advisor - Robert O'Brien - Chairman of the Committee
Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo
Secretary of the Treasury - Steve Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense - Christopher Miller
Attorney General - William Barr
Secretary of Energy - Dan Brouillette
Secretary of Homeland Security - Chad Wolf
Chief of Staff to the President - Mark Meadows
Director of National Intelligence - John Ratcliffe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Mark Milley
CIA Director - Gina Haspel
Homeland Security Advisor - Julia Nesheiwat
United States Representative to the UN - Kelly Craft
The underlined names are those who concurrently held a position on the Executive Committee of EO 13961 above.
Of course, if we assume that Executive Order 13961 and the “Strategy” document provide the framework for devolution, we must at least assume that all the names on the list are “white hats,” despite some appearances to the contrary (as in the case of controversial figure of General Milley).
The strategy for continuity of government reduces the burden of relocating staff to alternative locations and relies more on the redistribution and decentralization of tasks. We are faced with a holistic risk management regarding government continuity, with a division of tasks across a very broad spectrum of bureaucratic bodies, so that the individual entities involved may not even be communicated anything regarding the government continuity plan. A similar model was designed to continue to work even when the Biden administration takes office. The construction of "devolution" is therefore probably based on working groups already capable of carrying out the fundamental functions of government once the plan has begun.
The “Strategy” document talks about “destructive events” for “critical infrastructures” through “kinetic and non-kinetic attacks”. We already know that elections are classified as “critical infrastructure”. We also know, from Trump's comments, that there was foreign interference in the US elections. Logically, foreign interference in elections and their theft results in the impossibility of preserving the form of government.

Quote:The planning model is also part of the "Strategy" document and mentions the paradigmatic change in the transition from a "reactive" model to a "proactive" model (which, that is, anticipates the enemy's moves, rather than reacting to them). Continuity of government therefore goes from being an overcomplicated reaction to an event to an invisible transition, in which the Core Functions that take priority are carried forward without interruption.
The document identifies three "directions of effort":
Director of Sforzo Uno: ensuring the efficiency of essential functions before, during and after disruptive events
Director of Effort Two: ensuring ongoing national leadership, accountability, coordination and risk management of essential functions and services
Director of Effort Three: ensure executive decision support services and operational support of the President in all circumstances, including in the context of unannounced destruction or direct threat.
The “Strategy” outlines the context, the planning model and the steps necessary to ensure the resilience of the executive branch of the Federal Government. These include re-prioritizing essential functions and increasing the number of possible nodes available to perform the re-prioritized essential functions.
Now that we have examined EO 13961 and the “Strategy” document in more detail, it is worth returning to the Executive Committee established by the Executive Order itself. Donald Trump, in the aforementioned introduction to the "Strategy" document, wrote: "Government and the private sector must work together to reduce vulnerabilities and design infrastructures that include preparation and resilience from the beginning". So let's take a look at the current public-private sector classification of those who were members of the Executive Committee at the time of the publication of EO 13961.
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Tony Ornato: is now deputy director of the Secret Service. It is interesting that a member of the Executive Committee occupies such a prominent position despite the change in administration.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought: he founded the Center for Renewing America (CRA), which is responsible for carrying out Trump's policies in several key sectors. The company employs several elements who were part of the Trump Administration.
Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf: after joining the America First Policy Institute (another institute that carries out Trump's policies), he is preparing to launch Wolf Global Advisors, which can be considered as a Department of Internal Security on a small scale. The organization appears to still be dormant.
Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe: he is also part of the America First Policy Institute.
National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien: he is the co-founder of American Global Strategies LLC, a consultancy firm that includes former employees of the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. This company also seems to be almost "dormant".
Secretary of Defense, Christopher Miller: he is the co-founder of Boundary Channel Partners (BCP), a consultancy firm of which several members of the past administration are members. This company is also "dormant". The working group can be thought of as a replica of Trump's Defense Department on a small scale.
In conclusion, we must look at Executive Order 13961 and the “Strategy” and place them alongside the circumstantial evidence provided throughout the Devolution Series articles. Let's add the dysfunctions of Biden and his administration to the picture: at this point, "devolution" cannot be considered a theory like any other.
The overall picture is now starting to come into focus. On December 7, 2020, Trump issued Executive Order 13961 “Governance and Integration of Federal Mission Resilience” and the “Federal Mission Resilience Strategy” document, setting the plan in motion. We are now able to identify the group of people responsible for implementing and executing the plan. Every individual responsible for “devolution” has formed or joined organizations closely aligned with the policies of the Trump Administration.
Have you noticed that Trump's relevance has increased lately and that he himself is putting himself in the spotlight? The MAGA movement is growing and there is nothing that can stop it. The people are taking America back from the bottom up, as it should be. We are doing our part, Trump has already done his.

It is no longer a question of whether "devolution" is real, but of how and when it will be revealed.

(04-30-2024, 07:04 AM)Waterglass Wrote: Thoughts

Quote:Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world, with 2.8 billion and 1.9 billion adherents, respectively.[1][2] Both religions are considered as Abrahamic, and are monotheistic, originating in the Middle East.

Quote:the world population is the total number of humans currently living. It was estimated by the United Nations to have exceeded eight billion in mid-November 2022