Debils Avocado here.

Note: I'm trying to approach this from an objective, critical thinking perspective, and by playing debil's avocado, add some needed (in my view) balance to your often interesting arguments.

Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America

This here says display. It does not say that the President can change or alter the US flag at will, or simply by proclamation. IT says he can change the rules and customs around DISPLAY of the flag, not the flag itself.

This is a legal code, and the language is very precise. Lawyers, translators and high-level military administrators will recognize that.

Did you catch that? The flag can be modified by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States!!!!

FALSE. See above.

There were no stars on the flag last night as President Trump entered and exited the stage.

On what basis can you make this claim? Many have seen and pointed out the stars directly. For some, they appear as black stars. For others, as metallic stars but placed into the tapestry at an indent, so that they are shaded from light, etc.

You might assert that the flag gives the impression of no stars, but it's patently false that there are in fact no stars. A no stars flag would have a purely blank section of blue, don't you think?

(Note: kudos for putting out a lot of interesting content and I think your contributions develop the analytical work on the board (something I wish there was a bit more of), but I also think you tend to be rather free and loose with your assertions.)

Eg.g The assertion that the flag is a 'final warning' might be accurate or it might be inaccurate, or just plain wrong. But, how can we assess that unless by application of factual evidence, and reasoned analysis?

In the case of Q, there's a strong tendency for us pedes to tie together assertions in order to shape and develop a theory that fits all the data points, but we shouldn't simply ignore facts if they don't support the theory. If you don't account for contradicting or limiting data points in the theory, there's a real danger of simply leaning into a wishful thinking-type approach.

For those who don’t know what an American flag without the stars means you have to ask someone whose been in the military.

Case in point. This here is a direct quote from the article written by Constitutional Nobody. It's relevant, surely, that in this case, the author offers NO sauce or references for his assertion. None whatsoever. As anons, striving to apply critical thinking, reason and due diligence, why on earth would we simply accept or use a claim that has no sauce, no references, and (has not been corroborated) by any relevant sources?

In order to flesh out a theory? Yes, sure. But then due diligence requires that one acknowledges that there is no corroborative sauce.

In a theory or idea that knits together a number of different assertions in order to sketch out a vision and conceptualization of what is actually going on, each of those different assertions needs to be tested and questioned. If they stand up to the testing, then you're moving forward. But, if they don't, it's wise to be circumspect. Otherwise, you can easily end up in lala land with ideas and concepts that pull on or appeal to the emotions, but which do not in fact advance overall understanding.

The above points are essentially the real gist of your post here. What follows RE: special ops, etc, although well documented, are essentially tangential points; they don't really have any bearing on the assertion that the flag at the DJT rally was a communication to the Deep State to surrender now or be annihilated.

Nonetheless, your theory about what post Q4414 is interesting. A bit hard to verify, right? Disinfo? Distraction? Why would it be necessary or important for Q to inform the anons, for example, of this framework? Is it possible that this is disinfo to distract and mislead the deep state actors while the real operations are being conducted elsewhere or in a different manner?

Hard to say, right? Likely to be a case of future proves past?

Here is the main theory. The 10 days of Darnkess will be a shutdown of the internet and certain communication systems. This will prevent the deep state from communicating with each other. During this time President Trump will be using EBS messages to keep people calm and perhaps give some historical details of the deep state crimes.

The Special Op's teams will begin rounding up deep state targets. 10th Mountain division will assist Special Op forces with transporting captives and maintain peace on the streets of our cities. Captives will be moved to GITMO for very quick military tribunals.

I wonder who will be drug in to this 9/11 trial. Is this the reason for the sad face on Bush Jr at his daddy's funeral?

This is a really interesting question. Kudos for putting it out there.

In conclusion, while things are clearly ramping up, I personally think there needs to be a lot more due diligence and verifiable evidence around the idea that the flag at DJT's rally is some sort of comms. It looks like an awesome, tapestry flag that someone put a lot of work into. It's possible that it's being used for that reason.

At any rate, the theories around whether it is comms, and if so, what it means, need to be handled with more logic, evidence and due diligence than simply asserting "most of the people saying it was a lighting issue were shills/handshake accounts". In my opinion.

I love the documentation, but I find you have a propensity to go hard on assertions and theories without really knuckling down or accounting for factual evidence that contradicts those ideas. Remember all the assertions around the Law of War Manual and January 2022? What happened there?

wwg1