Are you working as a Snopes fact checker or are you a Biden defense attorney?
Here is a video of Juan O" Savin explaining the flag.
https://americanmediaperiscope.com/ut-episode-187/
Here is another link with a starless flag that claims it represents an occupied US.
https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/fic%5Eamrk.html#un-us
Juan confirms my post. He also goes into some of the specifics from Law of War and confirms what I was trying to tell you during our last conversation. Juan confirms the one-year rule which you refused to believe.
The Law of War scenario is still in play. It hasn't gone anywhere. What I said with regard to the Law of War is that there was a one year waiting period and that Trump could not take any actions before January 2022 per Geneva Convention international laws.
What I didn't realize back then was the timing of Trump taking the White House back would be controlled by the 22nd Amendment. If Trump takes control before January 20, 2023, he would not be able to run in 2024. If he replaces Biden after that date, he can serve 6 more years.
You analyze every word of my posts to the point you take details out of context. For instance, the "Display" of the flag. The code obviously says "alter and modify" the flag. You change the meaning of the code by inferring its only about the way it gets hung on a wall? So, in essence, you are saying (based on the code) only the President can hang the flag and/or modify its presentation? Only the President can place a rainbow frame around it? I think anyone can do that. I can hang an American flag on anything I chose. I can hang it on my house, put it on my truck or hang from my apple tree. Changing the flag itself is what the code is talking about, sorry you couldn't see that. Your extreme analytical diversions in an attempt to discredit my posts hinders your own arguments most of the time.
I saw the stars, you didn't have to tell me there "were" stars. Standing at a distance you can't see them, I'm sure no one in the audience at a distance could see them. Those were not my words; it was the title of the article. I post the article title that says "No stars" and you have a problem with that? Why? If the man wants to say "No stars" who cares? We know what he is talking about. What did you want him to say....the flag with the dark, hard to see, metal, embroider stars?
I'm not going to sit here and refute every comment from you, I have been down that road with you once before and it got me nowhere.
Obviously, I cannot say for certain how this movie plays out. The best I can do is look at all the pieces, try to make the pieces fit together and make a prediction. If you don't want to partake in my predictions, no offense, keep moving, you are not obligated.
Maybe you have it in your mind, everything we have seen thus far is all normal stuff that happens every day, there is nothing to see here, keep moving. You can think that if you want and you can try to convince us all we are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, but you will look foolish.
Are you working as a Snopes fact checker or are you a Biden defense attorney?
Here is a video of Juan O" Savin explaining the flag.
https://americanmediaperiscope.com/ut-episode-187/
Here is another link with a starless flag that claims it represents an occupied US.
https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/fic%5Eamrk.html#un-us
Juan confirms my post. He also goes into some of the specifics from Law of War and confirms what I was trying to tell you during our last conversation. Juan confirms the one-year rule which you refused to believe.
The Law of War scenario is still in play. It hasn't gone anywhere. What I said with regard to the Law of War is that there was a one year waiting period and that Trump could not take any actions before January 2022 per Geneva Convention international laws.
What I didn't realize back then was the timing of Trump taking the White House back would be controlled by the 22nd Amendment. If Trump takes control before January 20, 2023, he would not be able to run in 2024. If he replaces Biden after that date, he can serve 6 more years.
You analyze every word of my posts to the point you take details out of context. For instance, the "Display" of the flag. The code obviously says "alter and modify" the flag. You change the meaning of the code by inferring its only about the way it gets hung on a wall? So, in essence, you are saying (based on the code) only the President can hang the flag and/or modify its presentation? Only the President can place a rainbow frame around it? I think anyone can do that. I can hang an American flag on anything I chose. I can hang it on my house, put it on my truck or hang from my apple tree. Changing the flag itself is what the code is talking about, sorry you couldn't see that. Your extreme analytical diversions in an attempt to discredit my posts hinders your own arguments most of the time.
I saw the stars, you didn't have to tell me there "were" stars. Standing at a distance you can't see them, I'm sure no one in the audience at a distance could see them. Those were not my words; it was the title of the article. I post the article title that says "No stars" and you have a problem with that? Why? If the man wants to say "No stars" who cares? We know what he is talking about. What did you want him to say....the flag with the dark, hard to see, metal, embroider stars?
I'm not going to sit here and refute every comment from you, I have been down that road with you once before and it got me nowhere.
Obviously, I have cannot say for certain how this movie plays out. The best I can do is look at all the pieces, try to make the pieces fit together and make a prediction. If you don't want to partake in my predictions, no offense, keep moving, you are not obligated.
Maybe you have it in your mind, everything we have seen thus far is all normal stuff that happens every day, there is nothing to see here, keep moving. You can think that if you want and you can try to convince us all we are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, but you will look foolish.