3
battleofbrooklyn1976 3 points ago +3 / -0

Joe Rogan deleted this tweet.

Because that is not what the university found.

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

the website is lying about that.

Truth. this program is involved with fraud.

False. The FBI never mentioned Omar at all, let alone claimed money was going into her bank account.

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +2 / -1

There's nothing to cover up. This article is taking some truth and added some lies.

There definitely is a federal investigation into this non profit. The FBI has been looking into them for 8 months

https://sahanjournal.com/news/feeding-our-future-fraud-allegations-minnesota-search-warrants-investigation-faq/

https://sahanjournal.com/business-work/feeding-our-future-fraud-allegations-campaign-donations-minneapolis-mayor-jacob-frey/

But then this article piles on the bullshit. this is false.

Far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar was secretly funneled large amounts of cash that was intended for starving children, the FBI has confirmed.

The FBI has said no such thing.

The "secret" payments were found because they are publicly declared campaign contributions which you or I can look up because they are not secret.

This sentence is a classic of taking a fact and added bullshit. Instead, the bureau discovered the nonprofit conspired with local businesses to falsify records and funnel the money into private accounts, including Ilham Omar’s bank account.

The search warrant was served 10 days ago. If this was actually true, it would be all over the news. Fox would devote their entire schedule to it.

They haven't because it's not true. This website is peddling bullshit.

This is still the beginning of the investigation and indictments haven't come down yet, but this is clearly bullshit.

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's basically something the Ukraine has been pushing for a while. The AP updated its style guide on this in 2019. https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv

Russians will also refer to The Ukraine.....like it's still a region of Russia/USSR.....kind like if King George kept referring to the US and his colonies.

The country is just Ukraine and that's the proper style.

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

Q drop #4739 is not a reference to the law of war.

Searching qalerts.app I see no references to the Law of War or LOWM

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't see how Joseph and his brothers applies.

And I really think you are missing the point of Timothy about having a sound mind.

Having a concern and care for the truth is part of having a sound mind. This is completely separate from a spirit of fear.

A giant and very hard part of having a sound mind is not deluding ourselves. A rational, sound mind means you are concerned about accuracy and take steps to make sure you're not kidding yourself we will all do and is so easy to do.

You may want to consider that before you lash out at someone.

2
battleofbrooklyn1976 2 points ago +3 / -1

Is this an apology?

Are you saying by pointing out a fact, I'm being negative? Because what I said is accurate.

It's also an interesting theology, because I was taught the reward awaits in the next world. And also that fidelity to the truth is Godly. You can be deceived by someone with a positive attitude and a smile on his face. Happens all the time.

Someone who is constantly optimistic can also be wrong even if they are not deceptive.

3
battleofbrooklyn1976 3 points ago +3 / -0

This case is not about the 2020 election and this is explicitly stated in the judge's opinion.

McLinko filed his petition in July of 2021, between elections, and sought expedited relief **“in sufficient advance” **of the November 2021 General Election so that electors would not have their votes disqualified. Application for Expedited Briefing and Summary Relief, ¶6.33 There is no risk of disenfranchisement of one vote, let alone millions, as was the case in Kelly. The critical difference between Kelly and this case is that McLinko is seeking prospective relief, i.e., a determination as to the constitutionality of Act 77 **for FUTURE elections. **

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/244MD21_1-28-22.pdf?cb=1

There was a case back in 2020 trying to throw out 2020 mail in ballots and The Supreme Court in PA, already dismissed it.

3
battleofbrooklyn1976 3 points ago +4 / -1

Are you calling me Satan for point out a fact? How dare you! Where do you get off? This is outrageous.

For everyone else, I'm not offering an opinion. I'm telling you a fact. This does not apply to the 2020 election.

That case was trying to have 2020 mail in ballots thrown out. This was back in Nov 2020 The PA Supreme unamiously denied with prejudice their case

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the lawsuit from Congressman Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell to declare universal mail-in voting unconstitutional in the state and deny the votes of the majority of Pennsylvanians who voted by mail in the Nov. 3 election.

One of the reasons it was thrown out was, they didn't object to the law when it was passed, the only objected once the counting was done. This would have disenfranchised 2.5 million votes.

This new lawsuit IS NOT ABOUT 2020. It was about future elections. It was filed back in july. Read the judge's ruling for yourself.

McLinko filed his petition in July of 2021, between elections, and sought expedited relief “in sufficient advance” of the November 2021 General Election so that electors would not have their votes disqualified. Application for Expedited Briefing and Summary Relief, ¶6.33 There is no risk of disenfranchisement of one vote, let alone millions, as was the case in Kelly. The critical difference between Kelly and this case is that McLinko is seeking prospective relief, i.e., a determination as to the constitutionality of Act 77 for future elections.

-1
battleofbrooklyn1976 -1 points ago +2 / -3

We are not civilians. We are digital soldiers.

UM, OK.

So if you are so up-to-speed on the Law of War. What's uniform do you wear and where can I find the regulations governing your uniform? When reporting violations of the law of war up the chain of command, what is the chain of command?

Which version of the DOD ID card was issued to you?

Or is digital soldier actually simply a metaphor

4
battleofbrooklyn1976 4 points ago +4 / -0

This was not put in place by Democrats. The legislature was in the hands of Republicans

https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-01-28/pennsylvania-court-strikes-down-expansive-mail-in-voting-law

In 2019, the Republican-controlled Legislature authorized no-excuse mail-in voting for all voters, expanding upon a provision in the state constitution that required the state to provide the option for voters in specific circumstances.

-4
battleofbrooklyn1976 -4 points ago +3 / -7

This manual is a quintessential document for Q research

Why? Q never mentioned this at all?

It's an interesting subject but why should civilians need to study this?

By the way, you can find a much shorter read on the subject if you search for this document.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE LAW OF WAR FOR DOD PERSONNEL

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

yeah, I'm sure that's where the Pentagon kept their receipts.

But anyway here's recent numbers

$35 trillion in “accounting adjustments” in 2019, $30.7 trillion in 2018.

To get to this numbers, you have to go through and add up the numbers in this Government Accountability Office report on Depart of Defense Accounting.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-84.pdf

2
battleofbrooklyn1976 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. I know how to read more than the headlines. And I understand what a trillion dollars would be.

This was never about missing money. It was always about accounting.

You should look how many Trillions went "missing" this same way under the Trump years.

1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

The money wasn't missing. AOC made this same claim.

Look at the annual Defense budget and compare it to $2.3 trillion dollars. Soldiers wouldn't be getting their paychecks or food if that much was actually missing.

The money wasn't missing.

It was not properly filing for account purposes.

This figure represents "adjustments" in accounting books not missing money. It's also a figure that gets inflated because if you make an an adjustment on the credit side of the books, that's a liability on the other side of the books. It also gets multiple counted as it moves through different parts of the military

by BQnita
1
battleofbrooklyn1976 1 point ago +1 / -0

No.

If they are in the US and have committed crimes, this executive order wouldn't apply. It would go through the regular legal system. If the goverment thinks they comitted crimes they would have to get a grand jury to indict them and they would get their day in court and presumption of innocence and all the other rights and freedoms we Americans enjoy.

If they go someplace they can't be extradicted from, it might apply.

Many other countries offer dual citizenship.

by BQnita
2
battleofbrooklyn1976 2 points ago +2 / -0

In the four years since this executive order came out 414 people/entities have been sanctioned. All of them were foreigners.

The Treasury Department lets you search for people it has sanctioned....and there are lots of different reasons people are sanctioned.....this is crucial for anti-money laundering laws which are often called Know Your Customer. If someone from the Congo wants to put $10 million in your bank or someone from Columbia wants to buy your office tower, you need a way to find out if the US government thinks they are shady.

So the Treasury Department has a list to search for Sanctioned people and you can search by the Program they are sanctioned under. The program code that relates to this Executive Order is GLOMAG for Global Magnitsky Act. https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/

You can check this yourself. I just ran that search and 414 people/entities are returned. But if you set the country filter to United States. You can just one result. Harry Varney Gboto-Nambi Sherman who is a politician from Liberia.

If you click on his details, you see he lives in Monrovia, Liberia, but there is PO Box in Maryland connected to him somehow

Here's what Treasury said when they sanctioned him in 2020 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1206

Harry Varney Gboto-Nambi Sherman (Sherman), now a prominent lawyer, Liberian senator, and Chair of the Liberian Senate Judiciary Committee, offered bribes to multiple judges associated with his trial for a 2010 bribery scheme, and he had an undisclosed conflict of interest with the judge who ultimately returned a not guilty verdict in July 2019. Sherman has routinely paid judges to decide cases in his favor, and he has allegedly facilitated payments to Liberian politicians to support impeachment of a judge who has ruled against him.

........Sherman is designated for being a foreign person who is a current or former government official responsible for or complicit in, or directly or indirectly engaged in, corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery.

So this PO Box connected to this guy is the only time this executive order has every been used on American soil as far as I can tell.

by BQnita
5
battleofbrooklyn1976 5 points ago +5 / -0

Hi, couple of points.

So the Q drop mentions "in coming weeks." Would that apply to something 4 years later? It doesn't seem to match the original meaning.

More importantly the executive order you underline cannot be applied to Americans.

That executive order is related to a law passed by Congress called the the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. It's aimed at folks outside the US. "Global" because it's beyond US courts. Basically it allows the Treasury Department to block US-based assets of folks beyond US law. If they have any property in the US or bank accounts, they can't get to that money or sell that property. If they were inside the US, they could simply be indicted and prosecuted.

This executive has been misinterpreted before. But please read the text of that Executive Order.

First sentence

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, OUTSIDE the United States,

When describing the folks it applies to it has this section

(ii) any FOREIGN person

It includes the first batch of folks sanctioned. They are all foreigners

ANNEX

  1. Mukhtar Hamid Shah; nationality, Pakistan

  2. Angel Rondon Rijo; nationality, Dominican Republic

  3. Dan Gertler; nationality, Israel; alt. nationality, Democratic Republic of the Congo

  4. Maung Maung Soe; nationality, Burma

  5. Yahya Jammeh; nationality, The Gambia

  6. Sergey Kusiuk; nationality, Ukraine; alt. nationality, Russia

  7. Benjamin Bol Mel; nationality, South Sudan; alt. nationality, Sudan

  8. Julio Antonio Juárez Ramírez; nationality, Guatemala

  9. Goulnora Islamovna Karimova; nationality, Uzbekistan

  10. Slobodan Tesic; nationality, Serbia

  11. Artem Yuryevich Chayka;nationality, Russia

  12. Gao Yan; DOB April 1963; nationality, China

  13. Roberto Jose Rivas Reyes; DOB July 6, 1954; nationality, Nicaragua

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›