Hmmmm. If office of the president were under the control of a foreign power, and therefore belligerent, where is the rationale that it would be executing the work of the CiC of the forces they are in war against?
I don't think you can have it both ways. (Although I haven't listened to the interview yet.)
As far as I understand COG and devo theory, a state of COG would mean that the authority of the civilian exec is devolved so that certain aspects of it are in the control of the military, while other aspects would remain in the hands to the 'operating' exec aka potus in name.
If Biden is in controlled by foreign powers in fact, then why would he be executing EOs issued by the CIC of the non-foreign military?
However, if COG was implemented, with core functions 1-10 being maintained under military authority, but non-core (essential) functions 11-20 being operated by the executive in name, then indeed, the Biden exec office may well be in a position to execute what the COG authority dictates in terms of EOs, etc.
I think it's obvious (and agree) that Potus and CIC are separate officers with separate jurisdictions, but if COG is in place, I imagine that BOTH roles would have been devolved. DJT would not be in either position, but rather stand in a position of consultation, in cooperation and coordination with the COG authority.
If the current Admin in fact represents a belligerent occupation, how could it maintain that status but be acting on behalf of the sovereign authority it has replaced?
That you didnt listen yet and typed all that is disquieting. Dig research first talk last.
You cant form an opinion thats valid until your get all the info through your head. Devolution is in play or we would be in camps n likely deceased by now.
Thanks for the comment. I was referring specifically to the elements within the LoW manual, which I dug into an looked at rather closely, in particular Chapter 11, about 2 years back.
Would the interview have new information that might have me change my direct reading and analysis? Possibly. But there are other sources apart from the interview, not to mention direct digs, and it is on that basis that I wrote this comment. I mean, it's not as if I know nothing about this and I just wrote off some lame ideas I came up with without having done research.
As such, I think its ok to comment, even if I haven't listened to THIS particular interview or perspective yet. Obviously, I cannot comment on the interview itself, but the subject matter has been around for quite some time.
FYI, I later listened to about 60% of the interview. I wasn't particularly impressed.
Careful with that. Devolution has been exposed as a CCP funded op. Kash Patel has explicitly said it’s “OFF” the table. Whatever is happening is evidently something else.
This is a valid question, and one that should be addressed.
Remember, we are playing 4D chess, for the benefit of the sleeping people AND for capturing all the puppets whose masters have been taken out, while following all laws and rules to the satisfaction of everyone involved, including military generals.
So what does this mean? I means that "Biden" belligerently holdng the office of the president does not mean Biden is actually a real powerful person with real powerful foreign forces behind him. The optics have multiple layers.
For the public - we have to show them the plan - foreign powers installing their agent into power to destroy us.
For the Enemy - we have to make them think their plan is working. That they have their guy in control.
For the military generals and Q team - they know that this "Biden" is not the guy in control, nor is he really following the enemy's instructions. He is a WH plant, to pretend he is working for the enemy, but somehow nothing goes their way because he pretends to be totally incompetant.
Why do you think the Cabal is throwing Biden under the bus? It makes no sense, until you peel this onion and understand all this. They are finally figuring out that their guy is not really their guy. This is where they really panic. They need to fall back to Plan E, Plan F, Plan G, because their plan was for Nancy Pelosi to replace Biden as a backup. Kamal? No go. Kevin McCarthy? Can they really control him? No way.
So from now up until 2024 elections you will see the wild panic of the Cabal, the factions fighting each other, rushing to replace Biden with someone they can control, and in the process playing all their Aces in a rush, finally taking us to the precipice with their pants down and people waking up to see the truth.
Slicing this onion truly makes you cry. Tears of joy for us, tears of terror for the enemy.
If the current Admin in fact represents a belligerent occupation, how could it maintain that status but be acting on behalf of the sovereign authority it has replaced?
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"? It's all about optics. If you can control your enemy and make them work for you why wouldn't you?
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"?
Perhaps you misread my question? I never said or intended to imply that.
I mean, if (sic) Biden admin is a so-called belligerent occupation, why would it act as a proxy on behalf of the legitimate sovereignty? Could it still be a 'belligerent occupancy' if in fact it is operating on behalf of the legitimate sovereign?
In fact, it seems to me the logic you are using actually requires the predicate that indeed, Biden Admin does care about 'maintaining their status' as head of the corporate entity OR as pseudo US admin. That's why they would cooperate with their opponents, on account of the opponents having superior influence over them, no?
My question here is: (what is your understanding of) WHY the Biden admin is executing the legitimate authority's agenda IF it is opposed to that agenda?
To my mind, either they are controlled, and therefore not actually a foreign or belligerent occupancy, or cooperative, and therefore not a belligerent occupancy, or they are a belligerent occupancy and they would not be cooperative.
I find the idea that the Biden admin is a puppet of the legitimate sovereignty (i.e. who the white hats serve) is very plausible, based on the data, but I cannot reconcile that with the idea that they are actually opposed, or a foreign controlled occupancy. The two notions seem contradictory to me, at this juncture.
If you were actually able to explain this in your own words in a clear and systematic way, I think it would be more understandable that two sentence comments on an internet forum. But I guess not a lot of people are into that? No disrespect, but if one cannot articulate one's thought process or ideas, then it begs the question, how much sense is there really there? It might be there, but then you should be able to articulate it, no?
I have struggled with that inherent contradiction when reading these things as well. I wonder if maybe there was a period of belligerence, followed by submission. That maybe the military occupation needed to then be extended during the "deprogramming." Or maybe that somehow given the cancerous nature of the deep state the period of belligerence is extended until all cancer cells are eradicated, especially from the executive branch which would take some time. I fell asleep trying to listen this interview so I'd have to listen again and look at the timing of these EO's and other information that this guy is "proving" military occupation.
I will say that the EO's themselves beg a lot of questions.
The simple fact is that we don’t have all the details regarding this and other similar things. We’re not going to know until this is all over with us as the winners in this war
I just searched the DoD Law of War Manual for every instance of "commander in chief." There 23 references.
The most relevant reference is page 1141 which simply states.
The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of its military
forces.
Another reference is
For example, as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, the President would be a legitimate target in
wartime.
The idea that the president is not the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces seems to be a misunderstanding of the secondary meaning of commander in chief
an officer in charge of a major subdivision of a country's armed forces, or of its forces in a particular area.
Examples from the law of war manual include
Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CINCCENT)
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army
Commander-in-Chief, European Command
Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command; the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army; and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers.
11.22.2.2 Methods of Levying Contributions. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a “Commander-in-chief.”437 The term
“Commander-in-chief” may be understood to refer to the highest military officer charged with
the administration of the occupied territory.
The rest are from footnotes
J.A.G.S. TEXT NO. 11, LAW OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION 182 (“Seemingly the term ‘commander in chief' refers to the highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory.”)
And
HAGUE IV REG. art. 51 (“No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a Commander-in-chief.”).
And
“The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander, and in obedience to his
orders; and the duties he exacted, and the regulations he adopted, were not those prescribed by law, but by the
President in his character of commander-in-chief."
So I don't see anything here that contradicts the plain language of the Constitution.
The Law of War Manual isn't about US command structure or military strategy, it's about the general application of war between sovereign states.
Military jurisdiction supersedes the civilian federal govt, and the whole basis of devolution theory is that the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war. That's all I'm saying. Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect. Obviously the real info would be classified so that's why we're all guessing.
The UCMJ is very clear who is subject to it. I am not subject to military law and I don't plan on joining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the other 8 categories of people subject to the UCMJ.
I've looked into the devolution thing and it takes true bits like this
the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war.
And then stretches that truth to things like this
Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect.
We are not under martial law. Our government is continuing normally.
Question: has CoG ever been enacted, or designed to be enacted, via congress of 'normal constitutional process'?
If LoW manual applies only to war between sovereign states (I agree it does), then how does it spell out in detail that "Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power"?
Surely it might spell out how the US CIC can act despite a foreign puppet doing [x] (which is related to the relations between two powers at war with each other), but not how DJT would still be CiC under CoG (which is related only to internal US law and structures).
So which is it? Do you see the distinction? Serious question.
It's worth noting that the LoW Chap 11 here is referring to a CiC as the "highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory", in other words, the commander in chief of the occupying forces.
Eg. MacArthur would have been CiC in Japan from 1945-1950, as the US forces at the time were occupying Japan.
Unless I misunderstood it, the assertions (or part assertions) in the interview in OP are asserting that Biden admin is occupying DC (or US?) on behalf of a foreign power.
In such a case, DJT would not be the CiC that Chap 11 is referring to.
Unless of course, the OP is asserting that the US is under Military Occupation by the US military. But again, that makes no sense as the US military serves the US sovereignty, and cannot be an occupying force outside of DC. It would be martial law, NOT military occupancy.
Or is the OP asserting that the US military is occupying DC, a non-US state / territory? That might make sense, but then the US military is the belligerent occupier. So....... ???
oh, don't go around actually applying reason, analysis or thinking that disagrees with [x]. You'll get downvoted!
I'm half way through the topic interview. Maybe its coz I'm listening to the audio and missing some visuals? But it sure seems like a LOT of factoids to process, and very little breathing space!
I mean, fwiw, I'm a really big fan of PP's Dev series. I think there is some solid stuff there.
But when you have so-called white hats doing black hat type operations, I start to feel red flags rising.
The interviewee is saying that the J6 Affairs was actually instigated and executed by the military for [x] reasons. Hmmm....
I do like it when folks refer to the LoW manual. Magic eyes did some very interesting and dramatically compelling research on that. But when I read it myself (and I have professional training in reading and comprehension of a wide variety of documentation), I often get the impression that some folks misinterpret the content and construe it as B when it simply says A.
Chapter 11.
And if you watch the X22 interview he explains the Biden EO as actually coming from Trump, because he is CiC, not Biden.
Biden literally signs whatever is put in front of him so that's no indication of legitimacy.
Hmmmm. If office of the president were under the control of a foreign power, and therefore belligerent, where is the rationale that it would be executing the work of the CiC of the forces they are in war against?
I don't think you can have it both ways. (Although I haven't listened to the interview yet.)
As far as I understand COG and devo theory, a state of COG would mean that the authority of the civilian exec is devolved so that certain aspects of it are in the control of the military, while other aspects would remain in the hands to the 'operating' exec aka potus in name.
If Biden is in controlled by foreign powers in fact, then why would he be executing EOs issued by the CIC of the non-foreign military?
However, if COG was implemented, with core functions 1-10 being maintained under military authority, but non-core (essential) functions 11-20 being operated by the executive in name, then indeed, the Biden exec office may well be in a position to execute what the COG authority dictates in terms of EOs, etc.
I think it's obvious (and agree) that Potus and CIC are separate officers with separate jurisdictions, but if COG is in place, I imagine that BOTH roles would have been devolved. DJT would not be in either position, but rather stand in a position of consultation, in cooperation and coordination with the COG authority.
If the current Admin in fact represents a belligerent occupation, how could it maintain that status but be acting on behalf of the sovereign authority it has replaced?
That you didnt listen yet and typed all that is disquieting. Dig research first talk last. You cant form an opinion thats valid until your get all the info through your head. Devolution is in play or we would be in camps n likely deceased by now.
Thanks for the comment. I was referring specifically to the elements within the LoW manual, which I dug into an looked at rather closely, in particular Chapter 11, about 2 years back.
Would the interview have new information that might have me change my direct reading and analysis? Possibly. But there are other sources apart from the interview, not to mention direct digs, and it is on that basis that I wrote this comment. I mean, it's not as if I know nothing about this and I just wrote off some lame ideas I came up with without having done research.
As such, I think its ok to comment, even if I haven't listened to THIS particular interview or perspective yet. Obviously, I cannot comment on the interview itself, but the subject matter has been around for quite some time.
FYI, I later listened to about 60% of the interview. I wasn't particularly impressed.
Careful with that. Devolution has been exposed as a CCP funded op. Kash Patel has explicitly said it’s “OFF” the table. Whatever is happening is evidently something else.
This is a valid question, and one that should be addressed.
Remember, we are playing 4D chess, for the benefit of the sleeping people AND for capturing all the puppets whose masters have been taken out, while following all laws and rules to the satisfaction of everyone involved, including military generals.
So what does this mean? I means that "Biden" belligerently holdng the office of the president does not mean Biden is actually a real powerful person with real powerful foreign forces behind him. The optics have multiple layers.
For the public - we have to show them the plan - foreign powers installing their agent into power to destroy us.
For the Enemy - we have to make them think their plan is working. That they have their guy in control.
For the military generals and Q team - they know that this "Biden" is not the guy in control, nor is he really following the enemy's instructions. He is a WH plant, to pretend he is working for the enemy, but somehow nothing goes their way because he pretends to be totally incompetant.
Why do you think the Cabal is throwing Biden under the bus? It makes no sense, until you peel this onion and understand all this. They are finally figuring out that their guy is not really their guy. This is where they really panic. They need to fall back to Plan E, Plan F, Plan G, because their plan was for Nancy Pelosi to replace Biden as a backup. Kamal? No go. Kevin McCarthy? Can they really control him? No way.
So from now up until 2024 elections you will see the wild panic of the Cabal, the factions fighting each other, rushing to replace Biden with someone they can control, and in the process playing all their Aces in a rush, finally taking us to the precipice with their pants down and people waking up to see the truth.
Slicing this onion truly makes you cry. Tears of joy for us, tears of terror for the enemy.
You think Biden cares about "maintaining that status"? It's all about optics. If you can control your enemy and make them work for you why wouldn't you?
Perhaps you misread my question? I never said or intended to imply that.
I mean, if (sic) Biden admin is a so-called belligerent occupation, why would it act as a proxy on behalf of the legitimate sovereignty? Could it still be a 'belligerent occupancy' if in fact it is operating on behalf of the legitimate sovereign?
In fact, it seems to me the logic you are using actually requires the predicate that indeed, Biden Admin does care about 'maintaining their status' as head of the corporate entity OR as pseudo US admin. That's why they would cooperate with their opponents, on account of the opponents having superior influence over them, no?
My question here is: (what is your understanding of) WHY the Biden admin is executing the legitimate authority's agenda IF it is opposed to that agenda?
To my mind, either they are controlled, and therefore not actually a foreign or belligerent occupancy, or cooperative, and therefore not a belligerent occupancy, or they are a belligerent occupancy and they would not be cooperative.
I find the idea that the Biden admin is a puppet of the legitimate sovereignty (i.e. who the white hats serve) is very plausible, based on the data, but I cannot reconcile that with the idea that they are actually opposed, or a foreign controlled occupancy. The two notions seem contradictory to me, at this juncture.
If you were actually able to explain this in your own words in a clear and systematic way, I think it would be more understandable that two sentence comments on an internet forum. But I guess not a lot of people are into that? No disrespect, but if one cannot articulate one's thought process or ideas, then it begs the question, how much sense is there really there? It might be there, but then you should be able to articulate it, no?
Anyway, thanks for the input.
I have struggled with that inherent contradiction when reading these things as well. I wonder if maybe there was a period of belligerence, followed by submission. That maybe the military occupation needed to then be extended during the "deprogramming." Or maybe that somehow given the cancerous nature of the deep state the period of belligerence is extended until all cancer cells are eradicated, especially from the executive branch which would take some time. I fell asleep trying to listen this interview so I'd have to listen again and look at the timing of these EO's and other information that this guy is "proving" military occupation.
I will say that the EO's themselves beg a lot of questions.
Whut?
The simple fact is that we don’t have all the details regarding this and other similar things. We’re not going to know until this is all over with us as the winners in this war
Like the others said, your YEARS behind everyone else. Watch the interview so you can get on the same page with the rest of us
Cunt of a reply
you're*
:P
Kek
u/#mjpopcorn
😍😍😍
Bravo!!!
I just searched the DoD Law of War Manual for every instance of "commander in chief." There 23 references.
The most relevant reference is page 1141 which simply states.
Another reference is
The idea that the president is not the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces seems to be a misunderstanding of the secondary meaning of commander in chief
Examples from the law of war manual include
Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CINCCENT)
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army
Commander-in-Chief, European Command
Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command; the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army; and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers.
The only examples in Chapter 11 is this one
The rest are from footnotes
And
So I don't see anything here that contradicts the plain language of the Constitution.
The Law of War Manual isn't about US command structure or military strategy, it's about the general application of war between sovereign states.
Military jurisdiction supersedes the civilian federal govt, and the whole basis of devolution theory is that the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war. That's all I'm saying. Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect. Obviously the real info would be classified so that's why we're all guessing.
It absolutely does not.
See this chapter https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802
Here's the simplified version https://www.liveabout.com/uniform-code-of-military-justice-ucmj-3354207
The UCMJ is very clear who is subject to it. I am not subject to military law and I don't plan on joining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the other 8 categories of people subject to the UCMJ.
I've looked into the devolution thing and it takes true bits like this
And then stretches that truth to things like this
We are not under martial law. Our government is continuing normally.
Question: has CoG ever been enacted, or designed to be enacted, via congress of 'normal constitutional process'?
If LoW manual applies only to war between sovereign states (I agree it does), then how does it spell out in detail that "Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power"?
Surely it might spell out how the US CIC can act despite a foreign puppet doing [x] (which is related to the relations between two powers at war with each other), but not how DJT would still be CiC under CoG (which is related only to internal US law and structures).
So which is it? Do you see the distinction? Serious question.
It's worth noting that the LoW Chap 11 here is referring to a CiC as the "highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory", in other words, the commander in chief of the occupying forces.
Eg. MacArthur would have been CiC in Japan from 1945-1950, as the US forces at the time were occupying Japan.
Unless I misunderstood it, the assertions (or part assertions) in the interview in OP are asserting that Biden admin is occupying DC (or US?) on behalf of a foreign power.
In such a case, DJT would not be the CiC that Chap 11 is referring to.
Unless of course, the OP is asserting that the US is under Military Occupation by the US military. But again, that makes no sense as the US military serves the US sovereignty, and cannot be an occupying force outside of DC. It would be martial law, NOT military occupancy.
Or is the OP asserting that the US military is occupying DC, a non-US state / territory? That might make sense, but then the US military is the belligerent occupier. So....... ???
oh, don't go around actually applying reason, analysis or thinking that disagrees with [x]. You'll get downvoted!
I'm half way through the topic interview. Maybe its coz I'm listening to the audio and missing some visuals? But it sure seems like a LOT of factoids to process, and very little breathing space!
I mean, fwiw, I'm a really big fan of PP's Dev series. I think there is some solid stuff there.
But when you have so-called white hats doing black hat type operations, I start to feel red flags rising.
The interviewee is saying that the J6 Affairs was actually instigated and executed by the military for [x] reasons. Hmmm....
I do like it when folks refer to the LoW manual. Magic eyes did some very interesting and dramatically compelling research on that. But when I read it myself (and I have professional training in reading and comprehension of a wide variety of documentation), I often get the impression that some folks misinterpret the content and construe it as B when it simply says A.