Coincidence……

“King Henry II said of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” and four of his knights took it as an order and killed Becket. “

“Days before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Joe Biden said, “We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.”

Courtesy of The information Doctor

Usually after any shooting, the MSM and their toadies among the Left are quick to call for more gun control measures. This morning? Nada, zilch, total silence.

I think there are a lot of grifters out there, and the RNC sure his its own fund-raising websites. Anyone know what is the direct site to make a donation to the Trump Campaign?

Every time I switched over to the conference, Joe made another gaffe. I was watching "Jeopardy" and checked in during commercials.

What's the real truth on Joe's performance?

Last night some breaking drops from Laura Loomer said Biden had a medical emergency on AF-1 last night, and now the story has disappeared. Anyone know if that was a legit story or not?

Reading through the "1776 Report" this morning ( https://www.dropbox.com/s/gtm2sxsnto0xdg9/The-Presidents-Advisory-1776-Commission-Final-Report.pdf?dl=0 ) I came across this succinct description of Progressivism. Very interesting, but short, summary of why we must oppose these people:

Progressivism

In the decades that followed the Civil War, in response to the industrial revolution and the expansion of urban society, many American elites adopted a series of ideas to address these changes called Progressivism.

Although not all of one piece, and not without its practical merits, the political thought of Progressivism held that the times had moved far beyond the founding era, and that contemporary society was too complex any longer to be governed by principles formulated in the 18thcentury.

To use a contemporary analogy, Progressives believed that America’s original “software”—the founding documents—were no longer capable of operating America’s vastly more complex “hardware”: the advanced industrial society that had emerged since the founding.

More significantly, the Progressives held that truths were not permanent but only relative to their time. They rejected the self-evident truth of the Declaration that all men are created equal and are endowed equally, either by nature or by God, with unchanging rights. As one prominent Progressive historian wrote in 1922, “To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false, is essentially a meaningless question.”Instead, Progressives believed there were only group rights that are constantly redefined and change with the times. Indeed, society has the power and obligation not only to define and grant new rights, but also to take old rights away as the country develops.

Based on this false understanding of rights, the Progressives designed a new system of government. Instead of securing fundamental rights grounded in nature, government—operating under a new theory of the “living” Constitution—should constantly evolve to secure evolving rights. In order to keep up with these changes, government would be run more and more by credentialed managers, who would direct society through rules and regulations that mold to the currents of the time. Before he became President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson laid out this new system whereby “the functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions,” meaning that this new view of government would operate independent of the people.Far from creating an omniscient body of civil servants led only by “pragmatism” or “science,” though, progressives instead created what amounts to a fourth branch of government called at times the bureaucracy or the administrative state. This shadow government never faces elections and today operates largely without checks and balances. The founders always opposed government unaccountable to the people and without constitutional restraint, yet it continues to grow around us

I haven't been to the Drudge Report in probably 4 years or so, since it sold its soul to the Left. At one time it had been a daily stop to see what the real news was, but it ceased being a reliable source when Matt Drudge sold it off.

But in a moment of curiosity this morning, I thought I'd check in with that rag ( https://www.drudgereport.com/ ) in its current iteration and today's headline is:

IT'S HER PARTY NOW ...with a photo of Kamala Harris. Umm... don't think so, Drudge, but if that's how you're playing the game these days, go right ahead.

Back several days ago, someone here posted a Tweet (or maybe it was on another media) where some lib crazy called for the murder of DJT. ....for the good of the country, ya' know? Can anyone point me to that post or that Tweet?

I did a quick search for "July 4" and came up with not much. Any Q researchers here know if any of the Q drops reveal July 4 as a significant date?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13581223/biden-replace-resign-debate-newsom-obama.html

Democrats are now gagging to replace Biden. This is how they could do it... but, warns DAN MCLAUGHLIN, after leaving it so late, they may only have one disastrous option By Dan Mclaughlin For Dailymail.Com The left-wing media's 11th hour panic over President Joe Biden is laughable. 'God Help Us' read the headline of a New York Times article surveying the opinions of 12 columnists and contributors following Biden's catastrophic debate performance Thursday night. The least morbidly pessimistic remark of the bunch: 'This was a disaster.' After months of refusing to acknowledge reality, the thundering drumbeat now coming from liberal America – from the fainting 'Gray Lady' to the most deluded redoubts of Biden defenders at MSNBC – is that weak and confused old Joe must resign from the race or Dems are doomed. Well, I'm here to say: Sorry, Democrats. It's now too late to swap out for another candidate. You've saddled yourselves to this dead horse. You'll have to ride him to the losing line. And there are plenty of reasons why that's the cold hard truth. The last time a major party got rid of an incumbent president campaigning for re-election was 1856. Sorry, Democrats. It's now too late to swap out for another candidate. Democrats dumped President Franklin Pierce at their party convention in favor of James Buchanan, who went on to win the presidency. But back then, presidential nominees were picked by power brokers in smoke-filled backrooms where favors were traded and fortunes were made. More than 150 years later, America's leaders are picked by voters. And that makes things much more complicated. The only way – in modern political history – that a major party candidate has been replaced is if they have voluntarily stepped aside. President Harry Truman declined to run for re-election in 1952, amidst the Korean War. His wife, Bess, wanted a return to the quiet life. President Lyndon Johnson bowed out of the 1968 race, as the Vietnam War raged, after similarly being prodded to quit by Lady Bird Johnson who was concerned over her ailing husband's health. Could Joe Biden choose to step aside? Perhaps more crucially, would Dr. Jill Biden encourage him to do so? All signs point to no. Joe's been chasing the presidency for so long that when he endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 it was only because he wasn't old enough to run himself. And run he did in 1988… then again in 2008… 2020… and now, 2024. Plus, Dr. Jill may like being First Lady as much as Joe likes being President. And without the First Family's agreement, they'd be nearly impossible to replace. In 1974, Republican party elders staged an intervention to convince besieged President Richard Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment over the Watergate scandal, to resign. But with Jill and a couple of old Delaware hands – all of them having no future without 'the Big Guy' – tightly controlling access to Joe, could the party's grand poobah's even get a meeting? And who would Joe listen to? The Senate colleagues he once respected are all long dead. The Clintons? The Obamas? There are tensions with both camps. Michelle Obama reportedly refuses to campaign for Joe because of how the Biden family treated Hunter Biden's ex-wife Kathleen Buhle, Michelle's close friend, during her bitter divorce from the First Son. No, Joe won't go. And there's no way to make him do it. In today's Democratic primary system, voters elect state delegates to represent them at the national party convention. The contender with the most state delegates supporting him wins the nomination. And in the 2024 primaries, Biden won 99% of the available delegates. That aside, perhaps bigger hurdle to replacing Joe is the difficulty of organizing a movement to unite the party behind a single alternative. Democrats blew that opportunity by chasing all viable contenders for the nomination out of the race – leaving only party dissidents, like Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, to mount hopeless, thankless and, ultimately, doomed outsider campaigns. And who would Joe listen to? The Senate colleagues he once respected are all long dead. The Clintons? The Obamas? And who would Joe listen to? The Senate colleagues he once respected are all long dead. The Clintons? The Obamas? Michelle Obama reportedly refuses to campaign for Joe because of how the Biden family treated Hunter Biden's ex-wife Kathleen Buhle (above, center), Michelle's close friend, during her bitter divorce from the First Son. The natural choice for Joe's replacement would be his vice president – but, for the past four years, Kamala Harris has been consistently more unpopular than Biden himself. And picking anyone but Harris to replace Biden would raise a painful debate among liberals about why a black woman is being passed over. Surely, only Michelle Obama could pull off a replacement seamlessly, but she's never shown interest in being a candidate herself. Democratic activists may have a wish list of dream candidates topped by governors such as California's Gavin Newsom, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro. But none of them are likely to concede to another and pass up on their one best chance at the White House. After the Democratic National Convention in late August, the window to select a new party standard bearer will only shrink further. Wisconsin and Nevada have strict election law rules barring the replacement of a nominee for anything short of death or institutionalization. Democrats may risk not being able to list their candidate on the ballots if they change horses mid-stream. So, do you want to bad news or the bad news, Dems? Joe Biden is your nominee. And he's your only hope.

In Q 918, is the following statement, just before the Q sign-off:

"Wait until you learn who has been TALKING TO you here."

Has anyone ever figured out what that means? Is it a person, a team, AI, military intelligence....aliens? Anyone else remember this?

I know she's going to be one of the debate moderators, but since I don't watch CNN, I have little knowledge about her. When I search for her, all I get are the usual suspect websites... CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo, etc., none of which I can trust.

So what does GAW know about Dana Bash? Is she just another CNN hack with a political axe to grind? ...or not?

Thanks to another anon who posted this link a few days back (https://thedocuments.info/) I have been delving into the documents by Derek Johnson concerning Devolution, continuity of government, Trump being the CIC, etc.

It's engrossing reading, if rather in-depth. I'm wondering what the general consensus is here on GAW regarding Johnson. All views will be appreciated and considered.