Anonymous ID: 0741c4 Feb. 10, 2018, 5:09 p.m. No.331658   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1877

Where else is this [P] fucker mentioned at? I went over to qcodefag.github.io and I see it mentioned today as well as November 9th in the middle of code. People act like [P] has been an issue for weeks yet I don't see it on qcodefag

Anonymous ID: 0741c4 Feb. 10, 2018, 5:36 p.m. No.331958   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Have our military utilize the extra funding allotted to them to purchase the wall, a full and complete wall that covers the entire southern border of the US. It will take about 4-5 years to build, so the expenditure aggregated over time would be about $5 billion per year. This is well within the excess military allotment. My reasoning on how this could be possible begins from Article 4, Section 4, with the Government’s mandate to protect the States against Invasion. The primary tool most people would believe to be effective for this role would be utilization of our military to secure our border. That sounds great, except the Democrats and all the Normies would really freak out if the POTUS deployed active military troops on U.S. soil to directly engage in what is seen as a largely civilian law enforcement action. How can we overcome this freak out? It really is so simple. Think about it, the military builds base installations and facilities on U.S. soil all the time, as part of our national defense strategy. Just as the military contracts out this construction to qualified civilian companies, so should they too be able to do this for the entire wall. They are merely building an installation that the Secretary of Defense has determined to be in the interest of national security. This wall installation would have all the latest military grade tech, can be utilized and monitored by the DHS/CBP, and such monitoring would also be connected to our military in case of a national emergency or war. Upkeep of the wall could be contracted out or performed by the Army Core of Engineers or perhaps even the local state National Guard.

Anonymous ID: 0741c4 Feb. 10, 2018, 5:50 p.m. No.332077   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2092 >>2190

Trump probably just killed vaccine mandates

After taking care of his first batch of issues, he progressed onto the next by establishing a new federal office for vaccine freedom, which has the purpose of providing people a way out of vaccination easily via religious preference

 

OH MY GOD, READ THE TEXT. The legal text uses the words "unalienable rights", rather than "inalinable rights" which means this agency will operate under actual law, rather than legalese. This is a topic covered in Wayne's book Its Not the Law. It does make a difference, because if this wording is being used it probably means Trump's next step will be to kill off false statutes that operate under the color of law, rather than actual law. AWESOME. Bye bye asset forfeiture!

 

Take a look at this! HA HA HA HA HA, he's delivering! The Dems and the American bar association are going to puke.

 

Ok, so here's the difference: If the word "inalienable" is used, it means you are (basically) in a maritime court that can walk all over you. But just switching one letter, the i to a u, suddenly you have constitutionally enforceable rights that the court can't simply walk all over. This is EPIC, I cannot believe Trump did this so well. Let's see this sweep across all legislation. If it does, Americans won't be peons anymore!>>332058

>>332058

>>332058