WHAT IF: Looking at the bigger picture, what if Project Veritas has been threatened by Pfizer and PV thought it serious enough to concoct this (maybe fake) story to oust James, sink the company, then render no company available to get sued by Pfizer? James walks away safe, PV goes away safe, the reporters go away safe, board members walk away safe, James starts a new company and rehires former PV employees at the new company and proceeds as usual with a new company safe from law suits.
We've seen this before.
If the corporation goes bankrupt, does that make the contract invalid/dissolved/Insolvent? How far back can a country's bankruptcy court claw back? Centuries? Does it take a war to cancel the contract? What if we dissolve the currency instead? If there is no Rothschild currency, how can a debt be repaid? Assets? OK, we give you that hell hole DC back. In return, pay us for WW1 and WW2 that we fought on your behalf.
Back to reality, If the congress didn't have the authority to enter that contract, how could that contract be valid? They would have entered the contract fraudulently, and fraud vitiates everything.
This is fun!
oh yeah, I like that! How else could you bring in the military without it being a coup? How better a way to prove the legislature is corrupt? Exec branch corrupt, legislature corrupt, courts corrupt and no authority for SCOTUS to fix it. MrBig, I think you've got it! I like that!
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
and that's perfectly aligned with my question. I just asked it a different way.
Loy Brunson asked "If the oath of office has no teeth, then the constitution has no meaning." This may actually be at the root of what we're asking.
With all respect, I didn't say they don't have standing. Actually they DO have great standing.
I'm just asking about the remedy. Where in the constitution does it allow SCOTUS to be the overseer to the legislative branch? It doesn't. 3 Co-equal branches. Where in the constitution does SCOTUS have the ability to remove any legislator? This is a good case, but no remedy. That's the problem. What's the remedy? Treason? That case must, as stated in the constitution, be herd in the Senate.
I think this is the key. I don't know any way that SCOTUS can remove a sitting member of congress. Not adhering to their oath of office is bad, but I don't know if the constitution carries a penalty. Please advise if you know any. Even treason requires a trial in the senate. The time to carry out 388 treason cases would exceed their term. While Brunson might be correct on the merits, what's the remedy? For myself, I have won court cases, and walked away with nothing. Sucks. Removing a sitting member of congress, by SCOTUS, might be illegal. Interesting constitutional crisis.
"HOT" -could- also be referring to "going in hot" meaning "Guns a blazing." It is possible that with all the food processing plants being destroyed, with all the current train wrecks and other attacks on our infrastructure, that we're in the kinetic phase now. I could be wrong.
Yes, your outer level point is correct and strong. We must be careful when making a statement or point of discussion. We should be able to defend our arguments with facts not fiction. MY favorite saying is "Facts are our Friends."
Agreed, and your point is strong. I do not disagree at all. Tesla discovered resonance about 100 years ago, probably by now, the military has perfected its use/abuse.
I think the bridge you're referring to is the millennium bridge, and yes it was resonance that required its reinforcement.
Well, yes, what you are saying is technically true, but you can bring down a full sized bridge with a few marching troops. As Tesla said, "Think resonance." A direct assault may not have enough energy, but it you can get a resonance going, well........
It may be descending because it's lost its gas or maybe deliberately because it's done its duty and now committing suicide. If, before, it was flying as low as 19,000 ft. they might have had to file a flight plan because it would have been in commercial airspace. For a spy device? Not likely. It's more likely that it WAS flying much higher and now is descending and at a lower altitude.
My frens, I read the article, and they did not say it was impossible, they only point out that it's harder than you might think.
Let's look at the logistics. Is it travelling slowly? Yes. Does that make it easy to take out; not necessarily, it's REALLY HIGH.
Let's look at this in detail.
-
The highest flying military aircraft (that we know about) is the F-22. Yes, the F-15 and the U-2 flew higher, but those aircraft were unarmed. The F-22 flies at a maximum of about 65,000 feet. This balloon is flying between 120,000 and 150,000 feet. That means that if the F-22 flew towards it and was in its closest range of shooting it, the bullets would still have to travel 12-15 miles in an upward direction and fly straight. Have you ever tried to shoot a target 12-15 miles away and above you? It's not so easy.
-
Let's look at a missile. Yes, a missile can fly that far and aim itself. But the plastic of the balloon is not radar reflective, only the payload would be. I would guess that the payload would have the radar signature of a push type lawn mower, maybe less. That would be difficult even for a radar to lock onto 12 miles away, though not impossible, for a missile. Those missiles cost between $1M and $3M each. Well, that's not a problem for the military.
-
The only known, still flying aircraft that can get to somewhere near that altitude would the U-2. There are only a couple of them still flying and they are not armed. They can't afford the weight of weapons.
-
Airborne lasers. The only airborne laser (that I know of) was mounted to the nose of a 747 that was used as a test bed in the 1990's. That 747 has been in the bone yard in Tucson AZ with its engines removed for a couple decades now. You can go on a tour there and see it for yourself. It is possible that the military has airborne lasers now, but I doubt that the military would want to reveal that those weapons exist.
-
Ground based lasers. We probably have ground based lasers that might be effective against a target 20- 30 miles high. The Navy has been testing ship based lasers. Last time I checked, the Navy didn't have any warships in Montana, South Dakota or Minnesota, though I could be wrong on this. They don’t tell me everything.
-
Space weapons. I recall that there was a treaty signed back in the 1970's. It's been a long time since I was in the 1970's so I'm not remembering those details, but I again doubt that the US military would want to reveal that they had such weapons in space.
-
DEWS. If they exist (which I'm sure they do), again, I doubt that the military would want to reveal that they had them and that they were in space.
The point of the article it NOT that it was impossible to take the balloon out, but that it was harder than you think.
I agree, while it might be possible, but it is probably harder than we think.
Wow. Perhaps you were "seeing" the Alliance that we have heard about. Perhaps those troops are the ones that are removing the DUMBS and saving the children from under the White House etc. Trump talks about the "Fantastic military we have. Not the TV generals." I'm confident he's talking about the Alliance military and troops. There's much more happening that we will never know about. Perhaps that's what you're "seeing."
It is possible that you're doing some type of Remote Viewing or something similar. You should encourage those capabilities. Try to practice them.
There are a couple Q posts that discuss "castle." We have some speculation/evidence of Satanic/Pedo stuff happening there. Keeping an eye on Buckingham Palace seems to be a good idea. Thank you for your observation.