Great info if it had anything to back it up.
But it doesn't.
"According to a source in Trump’s orbit..," "our source said," "Trump’s people had somehow surreptitiously obtained...," "our source added."
That is it for sauce.
Completely anonymous from a rag that has put out a lot of unsourced stuff. I don't know of any evidence they have had a real source for anything ever, except where saying things already published by others.
It will be fantastic if this gets documented (if true) and out there.
And I know any number will want to downvote because pointing out there are no sources hurts the feelings, narrative is more important than evidence to many. But what can I say. Unsourced. Zero real evidence.
As with so many things, what's needed for effective communication is clarity and absence of confusing noise let alone disinfo.
As an example of bad communication, I think OJ could have been convicted extremely easily had the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, presented at most three proofs as to how OJ was guilty.
Instead, she thought it would be better to present "100 Reasons Why OJ Did It." Even to the point of trying to prove the gloves would fit. Absolutely no need.
And a lot more besides that. Expert after expert after expert after expert, instead of relying on clear facts everyone can understand.
No, when introducing 100 reasons, or thousands of pages of text, etc, what happens is doubt arises from ANYWHERE within there and the argument is lost. It's lost on your weakest, completely unnecessary point that you would have done far better to not include.
This is what the disinfo agents do. They introduce weakness and noise into truth arguments and we lose to so many people.
It's really simple.
What is that wound in Kennedy's throat, the pencil-hole deal which it took the doctors a while to even notice? Do exit wounds from rifles of that power look that way, or entrance wounds?
Which way does Kennedy's head respond to the fatal shot? Is he knocked forward, or back?
So which direction was he shot from? You tell me!
Anyone who's ever shot a deer or anything else can solve that one with 100% confidence. No "Commission" report needed.
And if wanting three, find the Dan Rather video. He was the only "journalist" allowed to view the Zapruder film at the time -- it was held away from the public for many years. Which way did Rather say the President's head moved, even moving his own head forward dramatically to illustrate and make sure we believed? Was that possibly an honest mistake, or is it only plausible as conspiracy to utterly lie to the American people?
Another thought: How did Rather get elevated to the pinnacle of American television "journalism" after being so utterly false in his reporting, intentionally or unintentionally, on the biggest story of the time? What does it tell us that he was rewarded so highly?
But that last is an example of what you do not say to the asleep or groggy. I would stick to the first two. Only on awakening to the lie would someone be ready for the third. Only at a final stage would someone be ready for the last. If the last were introduced first, it all would be dismissed as "conspiracy." Which people have been programmed to be a keyword causing automatic dismissal.
After all, the powerful never have plans towards their benefit that they don't share freely with everyone. That would be ridiculous and is to be immediately dismissed.
Now it may have been just one or two Secret Service agents that were dirty, but almost certainly at least one was in on the conspiracy to murder JFK.
Let's say you are a borderline retard, but not full, and you have received exactly zero training, but for some reason you have been given the job of driving the President of the United States in an open limousine. The other guy got sick or something.
You hear a gunshot.
WTF are you going to do with the gas pedal in this situation? No matter if a vehicle in front of you is going to get bumped.
You're going to nail it.
Not come to a virtual stop.
Are we seriously supposed to figure the actual driver was that stupid, below borderline retard, or that he wasn't extensively trained to respond decisively and properly? They don't get the job because of being the only guy willing to work for a buck-oh-five an hour.
Besides this, the Secret Service surely was involved in the route planning and had to approve it.
Now, does that mean they had to stay dirty? Absolutely not. The one Secret Service agent I've known, from before he was an agent through his early years in it, was as clean a Patriot as anyone could possibly find.
Not bad.
Or perhaps not a person, but rather a new enormous information drop, still upcoming, exposing the government.
E.g., a mass release of NSA intercepts of the traitors and "elite" crimimals being traitors and criminals in thousands or tens of thousands of instances.
You assert it "would" do it.
Problem is, you are wrong.
Actual searching, which you failed to do, turned up the contrary. Lots of it.
Yes, people should not mislead others. You should have attempted to verify your incorrect memory before posting. "An" address, not a SOTU in 2017.
Downvoting won't change that.
Evidence?
I know he gave an address but I do not recall it billed as a "State of the Union" address, and now find far more calling it not than saying it was, and much saying that the 2018 speech was his first State of the Union address.
There is no Constitutional requirement for a State of the Union address at any specific time or on any specific schedule, or for there to be anything but a report "from time to time." Many times it has been in writing rather than as a speech.
While a President can give a speech in front of Congress as the "State of the Union Address," typically or maybe always it's not called a State of the Union when it's only a few weeks after inauguration.
So nothing all that unusual here if he does not give one.
Xiden probably will not give an address, as my guess.
Btw, for clarity, where I above call it a "fake" vaccine the meaning isn't that it doesn't exist or is a placebo, but that it is not by accepted definition a vaccine, and it lacks anything remotely like acceptable evidence of either efficacy or safety let alone both, not even by the miserable standards of modern actual vaccines.
Quite a different organization pre and post Albert Pike.
I don't believe you can provide evidence of Washington or other Founding Fathers swearing the corrupt oaths or engaging in the rituals to accept "Lucifer" as their god.
You have a foul mouth but not much reading comprehension.
The links do not say that, in fact I provided the only part of either of them that discusses DNA at all.
If you can do anything other than curse, try proving me wrong by providing where either supposedly says that mRNA is made of DNA or that it or the vaccine changes DNA.
You can't, of course. You can just swear.
It's a shame how some care only about whether they love a narrative and care nothing about truth or even hate facts.
I will not argue with you because you very clearly do not understand the basic subject matter.
Others can judge for themselves whether "made using" is the same as "made of" or whether any of this says it alters your DNA. Which it does not say in either of your links and you can provide no evidence for as it is not true.
Not true. It does not alter DNA. Provide a trace of evidence -- websites themselves providing no evidence are not evidence, by the way, and your above links have no such thing. You cannot provide evidence, of course, as it's untrue. True statements are what we need. Not only don't we need false arguments, disinfo harms our movement by discrediting us.
The "vaccine" is horrible in many ways, but does not alter DNA, nor is it made of DNA per your claim "m-RNA is the software made of DNA sent into the body." You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Your first link has the word DNA only twice, and does not support your false claim. Instead it reads, "All human genetic information is stored in DNA located in a cell’s nucleus. In order to access that information, cells need to make a working copy of it—that is mRNA. Unlike DNA, mRNA molecules move out of a cell’s nucleus; once outside the nucleus, mRNA molecules transfer the information they encode to the cellular machinery that make all the proteins required for life."
That is correct. Your post is not.
Your second link does not even contain the word DNA and also does not prove your false claims of the vaccine altering DNA, or mRNA being made of DNA.
Please. Much better to make true arguments against the fake vaccine, of which there are many.
We're done. For you, "TAKE ANY ACTIONS" includes taking actions that on the slightest thought clearly cannot possibly lead to any positive change. For me, that makes the planned action a dumb one, a true waste.
I tried to bring this out for you, and clearly didn't succeed. Your heart's in the right place, though you have resorted to snarky insult I suppose out of having nothing else, I wish you the best, but goodbye for now.
We are all dumber for having read your thread.
I expressed no concern for your time usage and said plainly you can do as you wish, but as many are reading and you have advocated this pursuit, I have chosen to present reasons why in no scenario whatsoever can the letters you advocate accomplish a thing.
Pick any set of circumstances you can think of.
In some, the Patriots are in control and hardly need letters. Useless.
In others, the situation is that the Patriots in the military don't have the means or otherwise aren't going to get the job done. What then? The letters would be useless here too. What, they just need a morale boost, or to persuade a commanding officer who presently is overruling them by showing them how many letters they have? No, the letters would be completely impotent towards correcting anything now stopping the Patriots, if they are stopped. It would be quite delusional to think otherwise.
But are your entitled to think it could even maybe do something? Absolutely!
OK well I see you are still going, so let's have some further thought here.
Fact: General Nakasone, head of the NSA as well as US Cyber Command and more, "tweeted" on election eve that the NSA was guaranteeing election security and it was 100% secure. I read it at the time.
Fact: That was either true, in which case NSA is on our side and its head is out to make things right and there is no reasonable doubt NSA will have the facts and proof of everything done electronically, as well as the communications used for the conspiracy absolutely nailing the guilt of all guilty parties; or it was a lie, in which case the NSA is not on our side.
Relevance to letter-writing: Useless and irrelevant either way,
Second: Do you think the military is law-abiding, or lawless?
If lawless, then what matter all the law-breaking? And what use your letters? So let's drop that one.
If law-abiding, then is it lawful to start an overthrow of a currently-in-place government based on getting a lot of letters demanding it?
Please, surely a different and lawful basis would be needed, and if present, would be sufficient and letters would not matter.
I appreciate your frustration, 100%, but really, waste your time if you like as that's your business, but I hope no one else will waste theirs from your encouraging this zero-chance idea, which btw Q never suggested would be a worthwhile thing to do, for obvious reasons.
Exactly right. A really large percentage of people don't take care to stop and think about exactly how they "remember" something.
There are a number of ways. In one sort of memory, one will have a sharp visual image of a particular moment together with strong recollection of context -- where one was, who else was there if anyone, and other things important at the time.
In another, one has what seems a feeling of certainty and a definite direct recollection of the thing, but without so much connected memories to it. In still others, a person remembers having remembered a thing, or having thought about it, having made a decision about it, or just that it "was true" but not exactly why but some reason gets superimposed onto it. E.g, "I saw a video" though what actually happened was seeing a meme, and forgetting that but remembering the conclusion made from it.
For many people, most of their "memories" are of these later sorts, but they treat all these things as if they were the same. They are not.
I gave the OP credit for possibly being merely a victim of false memory due to unawareness of exactly how he "remembers," but he then quickly proved an anti-Q nine-day-account troll in any case
Seriously, if they don't know already what has been going on, letters are not going to do anything for them.
Or, if they know but have refused to do anything or lack the capability to do so, again letters won't do anything for them.
Lastly, if they know and are going to do something, letters won't make a difference there either.
Burden's on you, bucko, to back up your fake quote. Of course you won't.
You don't know it "for a fact."
If you think you do, the issue is you have a memory problem and think from seeing leftist memes that you actually saw a video of Trump saying this.
No such thing. It was a popular leftist lie though.
How hard would it be for white hats to set up the equivalent of WikiLeaks but times 100 or 1000, distributed across so many computers it could not be stopped, with access to EVERYTHING* available to ALL?
*Meaning, everything which proves crimes of politicians, government officials, and elites worldwide.
At this point, any "boo hoo, we can't have people losing their FAITH in government" argument is pure dogcrap, I say. Release it all. People need to lose their faith in criminals.
That isn't what "moot" means.
"Moot" means, as the beast put it, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
In other words, we say that what's done is done, it's cool with us.
The sequence is this: First, no one has any "standing," or has not yet been injured, so they won't hear a case. Then, after that, it's "moot," so they won't hear it.
Same as Hussein's fraudulent birth certificate.
All anonymous. I quoted each claimed "source" above. Those were it.