I wonder if it's prep for military intervention EO and handling any fallout related to vax mandates/declass? Not sure how that might play out exactly, but if what you're saying is the case, I find it a glaring error in the plan if FL has a governor that can't be trusted or if this course of action can backfire badly because so much of plan assets are dependent on FL (Space Force, Trump home, Mar-a-Lago SCIF, etc.). Perhaps there are specific conditions that keep it very limited, or perhaps it's a risk that was necessary to take for the plan to work that will be patched up as soon as the swamp is drained (in which case, they better have vetted the guy inside and out from one hole to the other).
I haven't seen this or read through it, though. (Moved back to blue-state hellhole from SWFL to support family, so I haven't kept up as much.) Based on a quick skim of the beginning, it seems to be clarifying what the state and contractors can and cannot do, and it seems to primarily be placing limits, so that ambiguities in the absence of any previous laws directly handling this sort of thing can't be taken advantage of. Not sure though--Would have to read thoroughly to look at the wording and for potential loopholes.
I wonder if it's prep for military intervention EO and handling any fallout related to vax mandates/declass? Not sure how that might play out exactly, but if what you're saying is the case, I find it a glaring error in the plan if FL has a governor that can't be trusted or if this course of action can backfire badly because so much of plan assets are dependent on FL (Space Force, Trump home, Mar-a-Lago SCIF, etc.). Perhaps there are specific conditions that keep it very limited, or perhaps it's a risk that was necessary to take for the plan to work that will be patched up as soon as the swamp is drained (in which case, they better have vetted the guy inside and out from one hole to the other).
I haven't seen this or read through it, though. (Moved back to blue-state hellhole from SWFL to support family, so I haven't kept up as much.) Based on a quick skim of the beginning, it seems to be clarifying what the state and contractors can and cannot do, and it seems to primarily be placing limits, so that ambiguities in the absence of any previous laws directly handling this sort of thing can't be taken advantage of. Not sure though--Would have to read thoroughly to look at the wording and for potential loopholes.
Thanks for bringing it up.