Deep State is terrified of our powerful, effective, hard-hitting, targeted memes. They are so scared of us that they resort to calling us 'bots' because they can't imagine how a human mememagician could be so powerful. We don't have any AI help. Maybe God is on our side.
MAGA! MEGA!!
You can smell their fear.
Our righteous memes terrify them.
What they fear the most is the awakening of the American people.
There is nothing so frightening, to the Deep State, as We the People.
We shall persevere.
You are a super-Elite fag.
Don't be STUPID.
This is some really fucking weak shit.
Is there something about "We are in control" that you find difficult to comprehend?
Anon, I would not be surprised if we have lifetime duties doing what we've been doing, if we want to continue. After America is liberated there are anons in other countries wanting our help.
Make Earth Great Again!
Reposting the transcript
Excerpt from Lindsay Graham questioning of Judge Brett Kavanaugh at confirmation hearing, 9/5/2018.
Q: So when somebody says post 9/11 and that we've been at war and it's called the war on terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?
A: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force which is still in effect and that was passed of course on September 14 2001 three days later.
Q: Let's talk about the law of war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?
A: There is such a body, Senator.
Q: Is there a body of law that's called basic criminal law?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?
A: Yes, senator.
Q: From an American citizen's point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you if you're in Paris (unintelligible)
A: (unintelligible) Yes
Q: Okay, so if you're in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?
A: If you're an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the US government, sir– long-standing, that's long-settled– all in there also long-settled law that–
and it goes back to the Eisentrager case.
Q: I can't remember the name of it – Johnson v. Eisentrager?
A: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have [been] considered enemy combatants. They can be– they can be– they're sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.
Q: Let's talk about can be– I think the under Supreme Court precedent right for them again there's a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military; is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: I think a couple of were executed?
A: Yeah.
Q: So if anybody doubts there's a long-standing history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don't have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation, you'll be treated differently? What's the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if there were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case?
A: Hamdi.
Q: Okay. So the bottom line is on every American says you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy?
A: There's a body of law, well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict.
Q: Do you understand those differences?
A: I do understand that they're different bodies of law. Of course.
Caveat: Has some machine transcription errors, not significant to meaning IMO.
Anon - this is a duty station IMO.
I never did military service to my country
but now I am getting a chance to show how much I love our country and our people, and to serve with gladness.