I've been saying since 2021, that the Office of President and Office of Commander-in-Chief are separate entities/jurisdictions and Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power. The Law of War Manual spells it out in detail.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You'll have a hard time convincing me without citing your references. I've studied this a good deal. Not 100% but enough to understand av lot of stuff.
No executive orders have been signed charing the UCMJ. You write like a bot.
I've been saying since 2021, that the Office of President and Office of Commander-in-Chief are separate entities/jurisdictions and Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power. The Law of War Manual spells it out in detail.
Kudos for saying "could be" rather than "is".
Yes. Pray for Peace. Prepare for War.
Yes! Thank you!
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Your myopic view screams shill.
Read the documents.
Also, what EO? Source your statements. This is a research board.
Nothing in the "documents" contradicts the plain language of the Constitution
I'm not sure how the research missed that.
Um, how many executive orders just got signed changing the UCMJ.. Are you serious ? These changes have been coming for a year and a half
You'll have a hard time convincing me without citing your references. I've studied this a good deal. Not 100% but enough to understand av lot of stuff.
No executive orders have been signed charing the UCMJ. You write like a bot.