The key difference is that GAW has faith, and lots of it. TDW and Patriots.win are of little faith.
Even as a follower of the Lord, I still can't wrap my head around why Q ops has such a great affinity with Christian faith.
[Cafe Locked Out] 2 Lawyers Explain Just How Dangerous The Bill Is.
FB https://www.facebook.com/Cafe.Locked.Out/videos/493562428313635
Description:
Meda, a Lawyer, read the bill in the evening as her family slept. By page 60 she had to get up, go to the bathroom and vomit.
Gadi is so distressed by the Bill he's been depressed ever since he read it.
They are not alone lawyers and QC's across the state are saying the same.
I urge you to watch the show and learn what the main stream media won't tell you.
This bill is a dangerous Emperor Bill. And it must be stopped.
[Cafe Locked Out] 2 Lawyers Explain Just How Dangerous The Bill Is.
FB https://www.facebook.com/Cafe.Locked.Out/videos/493562428313635
2 Lawyer's Explain Just How Dangerous The Bill Is.
Meda, a Lawyer, read the bill in the evening as her family slept. By page 60 she had to get up, go to the bathroom and vomit.
Gadi is so distressed by the Bill he's been depressed ever since he read it.
They are not alone lawyers and QC's across the state are saying the same.
I urge you to watch the show and learn what the main stream media won't tell you.
This bill is a dangerous Emperor Bill. And it must be stopped.
Full hearing: Sen. Johnson Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates
https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-expert-panel-on-federal-vaccine-mandates.html
Direct link to source audio/video:
The text of the 22nd amendment:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Assuming that the constitution remains as is, and assuming that Biden's "win" is still counted as him being elected, that amendment sets a hard limit to how many times DJT may be elected, i.e. no more than twice, giving credence to your realization. If Biden is removed and DJT is restored too early, DJT will have 6-7 years only as Biden's term will still be counted as DJT's. But if it all goes as you predict, the payoff will be far better than 8 years. 4 terms is a stretch of wishful thinking, but if DJT may have 10 years then let's take it
This is not simply wishful thinking. George News has spoken quite a lot about 2024 and the time before that even though most would rather not even consider the idea, which puzzled me as I wasn't sure what would fill in the gap between now and then. This insight fills that gap quite nicely.
In their last chat they also posed this question:
YOUTUBE TV LIVE: When DJT is accepted as POTUS, will he be 45, 46, or 47?
https://greatawakening.win/p/13zzVrl9p2/61-chat-line-compilation-for-104/c/
As it seems to the mainstream public, 45 is DJT and 46 is JRB. However, with this insight 45 is DJT, 46 is JRB/KH then DJT, AND "47" is DJT.
YouTube links:
Segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H36efXP7wBs
Full conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7gO1byQozk
Those ones are the truly detestable for whom I have no sympathy, for they have invited evil into their hearts, blind to its features and to the suffering inflicted upon their children, and now seek to spread it to the children of others. Those are the ones who deserve millstones around their necks.
This mother and her son are among the ones for whom I pray for mercy, for never before did they reckon with evil, and now evil has touched them in a way that strikes uninvited at their hearts. They shall never welcome it but instead devote themselves to driving it out, even if it may take their entire lives to do so. These are the ones who deserve salvation from the Lord.
Many of us here have not taken the jab because we have been immunized against it, by both our previous encounters with evil and our faith in the plan, the patriots and God.
I'm actually extremely skeptical that this incident happened at all. First we can't verify it (and who wants to verify it? Yuck.), and second they are both major agents of the deep state finally getting to meet with each other behind closed doors.
Third, his dementia has been too perfect and too convenient as a distraction. Recall when he tripped up the flight stairs? He tripped thrice and drew in his legs a little too neatly. No one stumbles on the stairs like that.
It's what we know about death toll inflation in a digestible, 2-min red-pill format. Beginning March 4, 2020, doctors have been coached to fill out death certificates to include COVID-19 as a cause of death even if they were killed by some other underlying cause. Heart disease with covid? Covid death. Car or motorcycle accident? Covid death. This has probably inflated numbers by more than 1000%.
In a few of their chat lines beginning August 23, George News highlighted and linked to the SIGAR report. At the time I didn't know what they meant to highlight, but this thread here now explains its significance.
SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) July 30, 2021 Quarterly Report to Congress
https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2021-07-30qr.pdf
[52] Chat Line Compilation for "2AM ET: Monday 23rd, Late Night, Early Morning GEORGE NEWS CHAT, 08/23/2021 #SlingsAndArrows" A Brief Check-in
- Astonishing, damning speech given by head of Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (oversight committee on war) @SIGARHQ on efforts by @StateDept and @DeptofDefense to classify vital info on #Afghanwar since the fall of Kabul in Aug.... thread summary 👇
"..shortly after the fall of #Kabul, the State Dept wrote to me and other oversight agencies requesting to “temporarily suspend access” to all “audit, inspection, and financial audit...reports” on our website..." They claimed info on reports could endanger Afghan allies...
"But despite repeated requests, State was never able to describe any specific threats to individuals supposedly contained in our reports, nor did State explain how removing reports could possibly protect anyone since many were yrs old and extensively disseminated worldwide."
Demands to remove info have increased since fall of Kabul: "I received a second letter from State Dept. They said they had reviewed the relatively few materials remaining on SIGAR’s website and included a spreadsheet containing 2,400 new items they requested redacting."
This included the following bizarre request: "State asked we redact #AshrafGhani’s name from our reports. While I’m sure the former President may wish to be excised from the annals of history, I don’t believe he faces any threats simply from being referenced by SIGAR..."
"No audience better understands the dangers of limiting public access to info in the name of “security.” And simply because the war in #Afghanistan has concluded does not mean the American people – or its elected representatives – do not have a right to know the truth..."
For years, while @sigar has put out remarkably detailed, and deeply inconvenient truths, about the war in #Afghanistan, the @DeptofDefense has been able to order classified segments of those reports, hiding them from view of the public... for example..
"DOD restricted from public release a range of info going back to 2015 on the performance of the Afghan security forces, purportedly at the request of the Afghan govt. This included information such as casualty data, unit strength, training and operational deficiencies.."
"In essence, nearly all info needed to know whether the #Afghan sec forces were a real fighting force or a house of cards waiting to fall. In light of recent events, it's not surprising that the Afghan govt, and likely some in DOD, wanted to keep that info under lock and key."
"This info almost certainly would have benefited Congress and the public in assessing whether progress was being made in #Afghanistan and, more importantly, whether we should have ended our efforts there earlier..."
"..Yet @sigar was forced to relegate this information into classified appendices, making it much more difficult for Members of Congress to access the information, and completely eliminating public and press access to and discussion of that information."
"..the bipartisan leadership of the House Oversight and Reform Committee and its National Security Subcommittee have formally requested that all information in @SIGARHQ classified appendices be declassified by the originating agencies."
"Likewise, the Admin should declassify and make available to SIGAR and Congress all internal DOD and State Dept cables, reports etc reflecting security situation on ground over last few years, especially those that differed from public statements of agencies in Washington."
"I sincerely hope we will have cooperation from every corner of the US govt as we undertake our work. @SIGARHQ's Twitter content was accessed over 2.2 million times in August, demonstrating that the American taxpayer not only deserve answers – they demand them."
"We also owe it to the families of the over 2,400 Americans who lost their lives supporting the mission in #Afghanistan to determine why the effort to build a strong, sustainable Afghan state failed so dramatically and disastrously."
Link to Chat Line:
10/28/2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5iH8uhnTo
Compilation Index:
Volume 1: https://greatawakening.win/p/12hl5CQ7Im/chat-line-compilation-index-to-d/c/
Volume 2: https://greatawakening.win/p/140c4ldmeF/chat-line-compilation-index-volu/c/
It seems so. QCs are the most distinguished barristers in Australia, so when they get involved you know it's likely to be a significant legal matter.
A Queen’s Counsel is appointed by Letters Patent to be ‘one of [Her] Majesty’s counsel learned in the law’. Senior Counsel in Victoria and South Australia may apply for Letters Patent to be appointed to the offce of Queen’s Counsel upon invitation by the Attorney-General and then upon recommendation to the Governor in Council. The power to appoint Queen’s Counsel through the issue of Letters Patent is exercised by the Governor in Council.
An open letter against Victoria’s new pandemic laws
We are deeply concerned about the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 (Bill).
The overriding concern is that the Bill, if passed, may allow the Victorian government effectively to rule the state of Victoria by decree for the foreseeable future, without proper parliamentary oversight or the usual checks and balances on executive power.
A key feature of the Bill is that the Minister of Health will have the power to make “pandemic orders” (s165AI). This effectively confers an unlimited and practically unreviewable power on the minister to rule Victoria by decree on a long-term basis:
The minister can make a pandemic order while a “pandemic declaration” made by the Premier is in force. Given the low threshold for the making of this declaration (s165AB) and the fact that COVID-19 is unlikely to be going away any time soon, we can expect a pandemic declaration to be in force for the foreseeable future. Thus, the minister’s power to make pandemic orders will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
Once a pandemic declaration is in place, the only other requirement for the minister to make a pandemic order is that he or she must believe that the order is “reasonably necessary to protect public health”.
Not only is this threshold low, but it does not need to be satisfied objectively — it is enough if the minister subjectively believes that the order is “reasonably necessary”. This will make it practically impossible to challenge the merits of the order in a court.
A person wishing to challenge the order on the merits will need to establish legal unreasonableness. This is a very high bar that might catch only the most extreme forms of overreach.
- The content of a pandemic order is unlimited — the minister can make “any order” (s 165AI(1)). The minister is effectively given plenary legislative power. To avoid any argument that the words “any order” should be read down, the Bill then lists an extremely broad list of examples of matters that the orders can contain (this list is expressly stated not to limit the generality of the power to make “any order”).
These include, among many others, orders requiring detention of persons, restricting movement, regulating public or private gatherings, requiring provision of information and requiring testing and medical examination of persons (s 165AI(2)).
- Pandemic orders are expressly allowed to “differentiate between or vary in its application to persons or classes of person identified by reference to an attribute within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010” (s 165AK(4)). The latter includes a wide range of protected attributes including “political belief or activity” (Equal Opportunity Act 2010 s 6). Thus, the Bill expressly contemplates that the minister can make a pandemic order targeting persons on the basis of their political beliefs or activities if the minister forms the view that this is “reasonably necessary to protect public health”.
It is not difficult to imagine how some future health minister might form this view in respect of political beliefs or activities that involve questioning or opposing the government public health measures.
- Pandemic orders can be disallowed by Parliament only upon recommendation by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) or if the government has failed to table the order (s 165AU). But SARC cannot inquire into the merits of the order – it can only recommend disallowance on narrow grounds, effectively limited to the order being beyond power or being incompatible with human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (s 165AS).
In any event, the governing party may command a majority in the SARC, as is the case at the moment. Thus, in reality, Parliament’s ability to control the minister’s power through disallowance is going to be very limited or non-existent.
- The Bill’s Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee is not a significant check on the minister’s power. The committee will be wholly appointed by the minister him or herself (s 165CE) and will have no power to rescind or amend the minister’s orders.
The Bill also confers extremely broad and unchecked powers on authorised officers:
Without seeking to in any way denigrate their important work, it is to be remembered that authorised officers are numerous and unelected, and include relatively low-level officials, including officers appointed by local councils and other public servants (Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 s 31). As at late 2020, there were as many as 382 authorised officers in Victoria. Loielo v Giles [2020] VSC 722; (2020) 63 VR 1 at [52]-[53].
Yet, the Bill confers on these authorised officers extraordinary powers, again effectively for the foreseeable future. If authorised by the CHO, they will be able to, among other things, “take any action or give any direction, other than to detain a person, that the authorised officer believes is reasonably necessary to protect public health” (s 165BA(1)(a)).
These directions can target multiple people in certain circumstances, including if the direction “relates to a particular activity at a particular location and is given to persons undertaking that activity (including, but not limited to, a direction to restrict movement, require movement or limit entry)” (s 165BA(4)(b)).
Thus, an individual authorised officer will single-handedly have the power to shut down a political protest if the officer subjectively believes that this is “reasonably necessary to protect public health”.
- These directions are, again, effectively unreviewable.
The Bill also contains many other troubling elements, including abrogating privilege against self- incrimination (s 212A) and entrenching the system where administrative detention is reviewable not in a court but by Detention Review Officers appointed by the department (ss 165BI and 165BJ).
It is, in our view, no answer to these criticisms to say that the Bill contains more safeguards than presently exist for the emergency powers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. The emergency powers are just that – extraordinary powers that are available to be exercised for only a very short period (originally six months, though this period was extended).
There is no need to give the government of the day a blank cheque to rule by decree.
It is one thing to allow temporary rule by decree to deal with an unforeseen and extraordinary emergency in circumstances of extreme urgency. It is something else altogether to entrench rule by decree as a long-term norm.
In our view, this is antithetical to basic democratic principles and should not be allowed to happen.
We are now more than 18 months into the pandemic. It has become clear what sort of powers might be required to deal with it. There is no need to give the government of the day a blank cheque to rule by decree.
Instead, the Bill should give the minister specific powers to do specific things (such as border closures, lockdowns, mask and vaccination mandates, etc), subject to specific and prescriptive requirements listed in the Bill, and subject to unconditional Parliamentary disallowance (i.e. without requiring any SARC recommendation).
If these powers prove inadequate, the minister can come back to Parliament and seek additional powers. This is how a parliamentary democracy is meant to work.
If there is a need for a general power to make orders in the case of some new unforeseen development requiring urgent action before Parliament has a chance to consider the proposed measures, such power should be restricted to orders that lapse after a very brief period unless confirmed by both houses of Parliament.
At the very least, the power to make general pandemic orders must be subject to unconditional disallowance by Parliament (i.e. without requiring any SARC recommendation).
We call on the Parliament to amend the Bill or vote against it.
-- Ross H Gillies QC, Jennifer J Batrouney AM QC, James W S Peters AM QC, Peter W Collinson QC, Philip D Crutchfield QC, David J Batt QC, Stuart Wood AM QC, Gregory P Harris QC, Gerard D Dalton QC, Paul J Hayes QC, Stewart J Maiden QC, Richard P P Dalton QC, Eugene Wheelahan QC, Dimitri Ternovski
I echo your thoughts exactly. Is this mRNA concoction reversible? Is it treatable? And is there a timer? Are my loved ones doomed or can they still be rescued?
These are some of my anxieties that I'm committing to the Lord, and pray he'll guide us to the Truth.
This documentary is the red pill that answered all the paradoxes I'd come across about WWI and WWII Germany, and shattered the caricature that hid away the truth. "History is written by the victors."
It also taught me the kind of challenges that DJT and the Q team must face up against.
Brainwashing.