>>12462891

The 2018 migration doesn't seem related, Anon, but the number games are not as significant as content, logic, and reason. You might want to

see Q 2793:

[Zero-Day]

Countermeasures in place.

[Example]

Think Emergency Alert System.

Think WH controlled new RT 'news' website

Think WH controlled new video stream platform

Think Here.

Should this occur, immediate steps will be taken to classify each as 'Public Utility' (essential public services) to gain appropriate gov regulation (control).

Why do we make things public?

Q

>>12462906

>Insurrection Act was signed last night

That language is strained at best. The Insurrection Act is law. It has been law since 1807. 10 U.S. Code § 252, 10 U.S. Code § 253 or any combination, are current law - there is no 'Act' that requires signing. I would think that 'invoking' the law is all that is needed. 'Signing the Act' is language that suggests someone is not in the know.

>>12462973

People need to read the words, Anon. And I have neither interest nor expertise in graphics. Perhaps you would like to pitch in and help?

>>12463000

We can agree to disagree, Anon. Others have looked for patterns, links, and decodes for years. Personally I don't see many promising results with that method. Yes, one can find seemingly worded posts or similar phrases and get excited but they rarely hold up to scrutiny. Again, your approach may be something you find satisfactory.

"Don't overcomplicate it trying to out-decode the next Anon because you may end up overlooking the obvious." That's exactly my point. Thank you.

>>12463005

Meat is a high-value food source. Imagine not having to hunt or herd animals to get it. The fast-talkers and schemers sit around and invent the rules that get them free meat with little investment along with an ephah of the finest flour.

>>12463017

I rest my case. Thank you.

>>12463137

>The Insurrection Act was probably already signed in late 2017

'The Insurrection Act was probably already signed in 1807.' I think that's what you meant, Anon.

>>12463157

>Q has often mentioned to check time/date differences

Indeed. Timestamps and coordination of timing were quite important to establishing the authenticity of the Q material early on.

>>12463168

I suspect we are going to find out that [They] have ways of making that happen. TV has used subliminals of various types for years. Check this Q post out:

Q !UW.yye1fxo No.96 📁

Feb 15 2018 15:02:33 (EST)

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/95mkultra.pdf📁

Read very carefully.

Unreleased [CLAS-HIGHEST]:

Ability to use frequencies [incoming sig]/modify/code/program over 'x' period [designate] mobile phone to 'control' target subject.

OP conducted/ORIG outside of US.

CAR control?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yqa5PUViPo📁

Statement by the driver?

Fairytale?

AS THE WORLD TURNS.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE.

Q

This is specifically about using a person to drive a vehicle into a motorcade, but indicates [they] can control a targeted subject:

Unreleased [CLAS-HIGHEST]:

Ability to use frequencies [incoming sig]/modify/code/program over 'x' period [designate] mobile phone to 'control' target subject.

OP conducted/ORIG outside of US.

>>12463190

You are mistaken, Anon. What you think of as 'hopium' is anons familiar with what Q wrote interpreting current events through their knowledge of the Q material. Since this is qresearch it is the only place we have to do this. It is not prediction, or hopium, or unrealistic to use Q and the strategy Q outlined to understand world events at a board called qresearch, is it?

You can read and learn if you'd like. You don't have to 'believe' - just take it in and watch for the puzzle pieces to come together.

>>12463203

>nobody even expects Q to post anymore

Anons - at least some anons - understand that Q had a mission to complete. When our Special Forces operators operate behind enemy lines they liaison with local forces and provide intel and other support. When the operation is over they move on to the next mission. Does your village need a couple of elephants? Would that cheer you up?

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-07-31-1995212131-story.html

>>12463419

>Q is foretelling specific events on specific days in the future?

Negative. Q is not predictive, Anon. The Q material is explanative, not predictive.

Suppose I am a prosecutor. It's 2018. I'm wrapping up a case and I transcribe some notes about the indictment. I may do this once or I may do this several times. I have to be careful not to reveal too much, but I post some notes online describing the case.

They don't make sense yet - except to a few, perhaps. Then I write 'Future proves past'.

Here we are in that writer's 'future'. Current events allow us to make sense of those past writings. Thus, future proves past. There is no predicting, just delayed relevance.