For some information, can you provide the first piece of evidence other than a novel, a work of fiction of anyone consuming adrenochrome extracted from human tissue or blood?
How about naming one Q drop to support it, since this is a Q forum?
Can you provide the first piece of evidence that it's even possible to isolate more than micrograms if that from these sources?
Of course these people are evil, torture kids, and some are even cannibals, don't change the subject, the fact that you have no evidence on the above does not mean I support the criminals or deny their REAL crimes. That's a favorite attempted counter-attack of those who have no evidence on their adrenochrome claim when they get called on it. I trust you won't try that?
First piece of evidence? Just one? Or is that unnecessary to you?
Second, how do you argue they could be "left without their drug of choice" when it's easily synthesized and is pretty cheap to buy pure from multiple sources due to that fact?
Information rather than evidence-free magical thinking would be good.
And seriously, citing Wikipedia for anything, let alone the Talk section??
Also factor in that roughly half of West Point, Annapolis, and Air Force Academy graduates for decades got in through nomination by demonrat Senators and Representatives. Filtered through them. These graduatesmake up most of our top officers. Do you think the likes of Pelosi and Schumer were appointing conservative Patriots? Of course not.
You cannot be a Mason since the late 1800's without symbolically swearing allegiance to Lucifer through the rituals. Furthermore, Masonic doctrine specifically is a two-god religion: Lucifer, who is their god and whom they claim to bring them their light, and "Adonay," whom they refer to as "the God of the Bible" and as their enemy.
Further, they swear to act corruptly in favor of others in their group against all who are not.
They are a cancer, all of them.
Every Mason judge, politician, LEO, and military officer should be expelled from their positions, and where they have acted corruptly, for example let criminals by because they were fellow Masons or pumped taxpayer money their way, etc, they should be imprisoned.
I would add, one must start by reading it with the view that words mean what they mean according to ordinary meaning of words and provable intent of the authors, not whatever you want to twist them to to suit your purposes.
E.g., "shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall be infringed."
Or, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," does not mean "There is a Constitutional right to abortion, or even to late-term and partial-birth abortions."
The left long seized on a principle of reading anything to mean anything they want, so merely getting them to read something does nothing.
Another example right now would be Trump's impeachment. Actual words of any law do not matter to the left. Only their goals matter.
Fundamentally, no one who seriously argues it's valid to read things differently than what they say has any business holding any legislative office or judicial position.
Infiltration of the educational system by leftists (one can reasonably say Communists) is the cause of this or at the least enabled and promoted it. McCarthy was completely correct in this. It is a highly fundamental problem that I think we do not pay enough attention to.
The first thing to do is to read the Act that's generally cited to support this: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
You'll of course see that what it is is this: "That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes."
It states plainly that its venue is limited to this specific small area.
You may read the entire thing and will find not a single thing other than setting up a local government for this quite limited 10 square mile area. It covers absolutely nothing about the rest of the United States. It is local government only.
Municipal corporations are not unusual setups for local governments.
Of course you may do your own analysis, but if you'd like opinions from people who go by actual evidence not just whether they love the narrative and damn the evidence:
http://annavonreitz.com/actof1871.pdf
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/1871-act-making-dc-a-corporation/
And stop and think about it. How is it even plausible that all Congress has to do is pass an Act and the President sign it and the Constitution and Republic are overthrown just like that? And on top of that, all it takes is for another person to sign something and the Republic is restored? How much sense does that make? Use logic.
That is magical, evidence-free thinking. At best it is misinfo. Arguably it is disinfo to make us look like idiots to our normie friends and neighbors when we go claiming "The US Corporation was dissolved and Trump is now the 19th President, Biden is president of nothing but a dissolved corporation!" You'll sound like a whacko. And if they take the time to go read the Act, you'll definitely appear utterly whacked. And that is the very idea of disinfo fed to us by controlled opposition. They give us some truth so we trust them, then they feed us utterly whacked stuff so we'll discredit ourselves and thus get nowhere when sharing real truth. Why listen to me about 9/11 or the stolen election etc when I just told you this objectively crazy thing?
It can't be backed up. Every citation you ever see will be assertions that will completely not match up with law when you go read the law.
Or will be obvious misinterpretations, such as citing laws having language stating that for purpose of law, the United States government includes where it is US government agency, where a US government corporation, where a Department of the US government, and one or two others as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority would be an example of a US Government corporation: there are many. No, that most certainly does not prove the claimed point nor does any law.
Quite likely I will be downvoted for saying this. In fact I was thrown off of Voat for saying it, after being downvoted to oblivion. However, there's the PDF of the Act you may read for yourself, and see if it is I that am telling the truth, or those who peddle this narrative.
There is a big tendency when pointing out someone has no evidence for them to point to, you guessed it, something that provides no evidence. Yes, I read what you are talking about and it says no such thing as giving Trump control of the military till March 20. Of course not. Don't get me wrong, I very much hope, and it better be true or we're vastly screwed, that Trump is in control and Pedo Joe's "presidency" consists of nothing more than letting him ride in a filthy Suburban and board a badly-oil-burning decoy C32 never used to fly a President or Vice-President, and mumble how he doesn't even know what he's signing. But however that is done it is NOT by published documents. No one can produce one, and that one certainly doesn't do it.
My take is the British people are very stupid with regard to having a psychological need for "royalty" to follow and obey. They are very slavish in this way. And they had latched onto Diana as, in effect, alternate and better "Royalty."
The existing "Royals" and power structure will allow exactly one "Royal Family," and she, Dodi, and any upcoming child were being perceived as rival to that.
And/or Charles expected ongoing trashing as long as she was alive, as Brits certainly loved Diana and scarcely him at all.
Sure, because not only were the Republic and Constitution overthrown by Congress passing an Act, but all it takes is Trump signing something and voila, Republic restored, and of course no one needs evidence.
Tickling the ears with a great sounding narrative is all that's needed, and anyone saying evidence would be needed, obviously is to be downvoted. Evidence, who needs that?
You have no evidence for this assertion.
Particularly among officers, there are very many leftists and statists. Remember, authoritarian personality types and I-love-the-government-being-my-provider types are also drawn to the military, not just Patriots.
And have you stopped to consider that one does NOT get into any of the service academies without nomination by one's Senator or Representative?
That's right, even such as Ilhan Omar, Sandy Cortez, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi etc, etc have been selecting who will become our top officers, for decades.
For a long time about half or more of Congress has been leftist and definitely more than half when including Deep State Rinos perhaps not out for every piece of leftist agenda but most certainly for every possible piece of Deep State / totalitarian government power.
Fact: Half our top officers got into the military from being hand picked by the above.
What kind of men, politically, do you think Pelosi-etc nominated officers are?
Your narrative sounds nice. Too many here and elsewhere like believing whatever narrative sounds nice to them without having a trace of evidence, and go about claiming it's true solely on that basis.
Can you show us your trace of evidence for your 99% claim or anything like it? Of course not. But feel free to try.
Some evidence?
I don't mean you found a webpage that said it without evidence. Some actual evidence.
This theory is always presented with zero evidence except naming a novel and sources which do nothing but, ultimately, lead to that same novel.
Horrifically evil people, but no evidence is every presented that they get adrenochrome from humans. Except, of course, citing fiction.
What you should be shocked at is -- given the fact that it is readily purchased pure and it does not ever exist in the bloodstream except at extreme trace levels -- that anyone would claim, always without evidence of course, that it is extracted from blood.
Unless one calls "It's a novel! And I read other peoples' posts saying this" evidence.
Do they torture and kill kids? Yes. Are they cannibals? Yes.
Is adrenochrome extracted from blood? Zero evidence and makes zero sense.
Let alone the idea they now are suffering withdrawal.
They can buy it pure. For quite cheap. That is an absolute fact, as you have shown. That is hardly the only source. Sigma-Aldrich has it also.
This is from a novel, folks. That's where it comes from. Take the care to find out what the evidence is or is not for claims made.
In other words, your position appears that while the Acts which supposedly are the basis for the theory don't say anything remotely proving or supporting the theory, in fact contradict it by clearly being limited to the local government of this small district and having nothing to do with the national government or anywhere outside the physical bounds of the small district, who needs the Acts to agree with the claims?
Nor does a single piece of law or legal decision anywhere back it up (or, provide one if you have one.)
But that's okay, because you had links to assertions, which don't agree with the actual Acts.
There has to be a foundation for claims. And when the claimed foundation not only doesn't say as claimed but contradicts, some will spot the problem while others will hold to their theory regardless.
Anyway, each can read for himself the Acts and see for themselves.
If you think you're going to awaken anyone by arguing Biden was elected President of a US Corporation only, which corporation Trump dissolved by himself, based on Acts you name which don't match up with claims, and therefore Biden is President of nothing and Trump is the 19th President and that is what will soon be revealed, good luck with that. IMO this theory exists as disinfo to appeal to Patriots as the narrative seems great, but as a weapon for them to lose their credibility when touting the literally baseless theory.
I posted the alleged foundations: any can see for themselves the not only zero support but absolute contradiction. I understand you appear to be not processing that so whatever reply you like, have the last word. I know it won't be actual evidence because it never is with this theory.
And no, a law setting out the various ways in which the United States can be a party to a case by defining that this can include whether as a "A) Federal corporation; (B)an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C)an instrumentality of the United States" does not say any more than that. The government comprises not only agencies, departments, etc but also entities which eaxh are a Federal corporation such as for example the Tennessee Valley Authority. Completely different than confirming the government was replaced. Added because I think you may have been sincere with that, but no, it does not support the theory, at all.
The 1871 Act doesn't do it at all. Feel free to try to show where it does anything in reference to anything outside the literal and quite small District of Columbia, setting up that local government not the national. Ditto for the 1801.
Absolutely everyone I have ever seen advancing this theory does so with assertions only and never evidence. Pointing to other people who likewise make assertions with no evidence is not evidence. Not that you pointed to anyone else, I am speaking in general of those advancing this theory.
Anyone who likes may read this Act too and see why those advancing this theory never provide the Act itself or anything from it that supports their claims:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140
I understand it being an appealing narrative. But sorry, a magic trick of "The real United States Government and Constitution were dissolved in 1871 (or any year) and replaced with a Corporation, which Trump dissolved all by himself, so Biden is President of nothing and Trump will be or already is the 19th President" is neither the answer nor an argument that will do anything but persuade those who do actual research that the person claiming it does not research for themselves and believes baseless claims.
This theory is a distraction. There are very real things to be paying attention to.
Also stop and think. Replacing the Constitution and changing the form of government is not as simple as passing an Act or any number of acts.
I provided evidence showing clearly they are local government only.
Feel free to provide evidence to support any contrary claim these Acts ever covered national government as opposed to local District of Columbia only. Your links do not.
Q didn't ever reference this one either and any reading for themselves will see why not.
Sorry, posting "Old Glory" does not support it and any whose standard of thinking has it that that proves this theory, we really can't have a meaningful discussion as on that basis, anythinG "proves" anything.
If you actually read the Act, which I highly recommend, you will learn a lot about who to listen to, as well as about the Act itself and that entire theory. And you will see why Q did not mention, ever, or ever base anything on that theory.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
I have never seen anyone touting the theory ever provide a link to the Act. If you read for yourself, it'll be crystal clear why they don't.
If you don't mind a PDF instead of something you can cut and paste: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
You will observe a near-shocking disconnect between claims made and the actual Act.
The reason why not is the Act does not support the claims. Every section plainly reads it has to do with the District of Columbia itself, not the entirety of the USA, and specifically states it is with regards to only "“all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”.
For any that need a link, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
Try finding backing for any of the allegations made.
That is why links to the Act are never given by those promoting the theory.
We have more than enough that is extremely real to be diverting with and discrediting ourselves with anything like this.
A magic trick involving "You never knew this before, but the US had been turned into a Corporation in 1871, all this time the government hasn't been under the Constitution, and Donald Trump dissolved that all by himself so Biden is President of nothing, Trump is now or will shortly be the 19th President" is NOT the answer. Or if you think it is, please post actual evidence not just assertions.
I have yet to see anyone making the US Corporation argument ever provide actual evidence, rather than assertions, to support it.
Every single section of the 1871 Act, when reading it, is in reference not to the entire USA but to the District of Columbia, and specifically states it is limited to "all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. Many cities are set up as municipal corporations. That was not unusual.
As Troglodyte said, ending the US Constitution and Republic and creating an (alleged) new form of government is not so simple as passing an Act.
For some reason I do not know, many are very determined to push this theory, even though they never actually back it up.
I was actually thrown off a Patriot (?) board for consistently asking for evidence on this and pointing out none was ever being given.
Until someone can back it up that it extends to anything beyond what it says, namely the District of Columbia itself, to me it's a disinfo campaign that has gotten many way off track.
Also as pointed out, Q has never advanced this at all, whatsoever.
What this idea does is, it pretty much will discredit any Patriot to his neighbor or friends when he goes on about it. Maybe they were listening up to then, but any number will decide someone is a nut when they argue this theory they have no substantiation for, only some weblinks that themselves provide no evidence, and anyone can read the Act for themselves and see it does not say this at all.
Clearly you like to change the subject when you have no evidence.