Are The Miliary and Trump in Control?

 ARE THE MILITARY AND TRUMP IN CONTROL?

Blog Post Date:  5-28-2021

It has been said, on several occasions, by Benjamin Fulford, that Joe Biden and his cohorts are not actually in control of the US Government.  Mr. Fulford has also stated that Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates have been eliminated and that doubles are standing in for them.

And why do the news headlines claim something different?  Of course the main news networks are essentially Democratic mouthpieces working for the Democrats.  The conservative sites appear to get no new information that is held from them by the main MSMs.

It is my faith in God, assisted by the claims of some Godly people, that the return of Christ (in some manner) will occur in the near future (possibly 2 or 3 years, maybe somewhat longer).  After all, the time is almost up from all possible timing avenues, and although the beginning of time is not an exact perfect date, it must be considered that 6000 years should be elapsed.

The following article is another Fulford-type but without Fulford and it gives us a reason to hope that things will soon correct themselves.  (Although I believe the tribulation will become greater until the end)

May 28th, 2021

Dr. Laurie Roth, Ph.D

I just got off the phone with a high up and trusted, military source I know. He confirmed a few things for me.

Regarding, the speculation/confusion as to whether President Trump signed the Insurrection Act or not, he did.  He signed it on Jan 14^th, 2021.   The act of signing it immediately gave him 2 more months as President according to the very directives of the Act itself.  I was then told that the military gave him 2 more months as President.  The second extension was over on May 20^th and most likely extended again by the military who is now in control per the signed Insurrection Act.

Now, with Manhattan Attorney Cy Vance convening a Grand Jury against President Trump, regarding his taxes and business practices, the Trump which hunt continues.  The only problem they may have is that they cannot arrest a sitting President and I am assured that he still is President.  Once again, the liberal, legal crazies are desperately trying all they can to stop Trump.

It was confirmed today that many Generals approached Trump to run for office to take out the deep state, criminal cabal.  They have been making arrests since the Biden – fake inauguration. The military support is all around Trump and continues under the Insurrection Act.

I was told that the military goes through the FISA court and already did their own investigation, determining that there was international and domestic voter fraud They have long known the real election and voting numbers and have acted accordingly.

Our military is bound by the constitution, their duty and the signed insurrection act to be in control, do what they have to do, make arrests and make things right.  They are supporting a new election in August and the return of President Trump .  I am told he will be returning very soon.

My source shared much more with me that gave me real hope that justice was unfolding in a big way and the truth would soon come out in spite of the sellout media and ego-laden politicians.

Hold on to your hat.  Pray for President Trump and our military as the truth really comes out.

God bless America.

© 2021 Laurie Roth – All Rights Reserved

Trump's Speech at Mt. Rushmore

TRUMP’S SPEECH AT MT. RUSHMORE

(AND A SHORT HISTORY of SLAVERY)

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Blog Post Date:  7-4-2020

If you did not watch Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore last night, you may do so here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qCiM_0vt2I

It was a clear message to the Bolsheviks/Communists pretending to believe in Democracy that he had no intention of standing on the sidelines and watching a Bolshevik revolution take place in America that would overthrow the government given to us two centuries ago.

The problem is not the biblically-based government that our founders gave us but the fact that it was not fully implemented. The radical principle that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence was not allowed (at the time) to be extended to all, because there were yet too many people who did not believe in that proposition.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration, he included in the list of grievances against King George III:

“Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every Legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

Ultimately, this had to be deleted from the Declaration of Independence in order to appease the southern states which had come to depend on slavery for its commerce. Yet it was understood that “after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States.”

In addition, it was agreed that the States “shall forever remain part of the United States of America,” something that would be challenged unsuccessfully in the 1830’s and again in the 1860’s.

The Lost Opportunity

After the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress in 1787 lost the opportunity to ban slavery altogether in the Articles of Compact. Article 6 read,

“There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor, or service, as aforesaid.”

A motion was made by strike out this clause prohibiting slavery. Six of the thirteen States voted to retain the clause, three states voted not to retain it.

The rule was that each State had to be represented by two delegates, and some States were divided. But if only one delegate was present, the other’s vote did not count. One of the delegates from New Jersey voted to retain the clause prohibiting slavery, but the other delegate was unavoidably delayed and so was not present to vote. Hence, New Jersey’s vote was lost, resulting in a tie. The rules stated that only a majority vote could pass a resolution, and so the anti-slavery article failed to pass.

The country was divided on the issue, the northern states being solidly against slavery, the southern states being largely pro-slavery. America thus lost its opportunity to eliminate slavery at the outset, but this issue continued to fester over the next decades. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 was a policy where new states would be added to the Union two at a time, one a slave state and the other a non-slave state, with the line of demarcation at 36 degrees 30 minutes of north latitude.

With an equal number of slave and non-slave states, neither group would be able to gain the power to impose their will upon the other states. So the country grew, and the division grew with it.

The Missouri Compromise Breaks Down

Then in 1848 Oregon wanted to join the Union as a free state, which implied that the next state would be a slave state. However, the next state wanting to join the Union was California in 1850, and it insisted on being a free state.

Another Compromise was worked out, but it did not last long. The status of the Nebraska territory was hotly debated and eventually divided into two states (Kansas and Nebraska) with the idea that Kansas would be a slave state and Nebraska a free state. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 effectively ended the Missouri Compromise, as it allowed the territories themselves to decide the issue for themselves.

The Republican Party Formed in 1854

In the midst of all this, a new political part was formed in 1854, called the Republican Party. It was formed as the party of anti-slavery and quickly gained many members in the northern states. Their first presidential candidate (John Fremont in 1856) won in 11 out of 16 northern states but the Democratic candidate, a southerner named Buchanan, won the overall vote.

However, in 1860 Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican candidate to win the presidency when the southern Democrats were divided. During the debates prior to the election, the majority of the southern slave states publicly threatened secession if Lincoln should win the election. Lincoln insisted that in spite of his strong views opposing slavery, he believed that presidents must represent all of the states. Hence, he insisted that he would not impose his views upon the southern slave states.

But most southerners did not believe him. When he did indeed win, South Carolina formally seceded from the Union, and within six weeks, five other southern state followed their lead. Some today insist that slavery was not the real issue behind the Civil War. But It was. The southern states seceded because they believed Lincoln would abolish slavery. The south believed that they had a right to hold slaves, because the Declaration of Independence had edited out its anti-slavery assertions and the Constitution failed to prohibit it. So they were able to claim to be Constitutionalists with the God-given right to own slaves.

While other issues and grievances were always present, they were not strong enough to divide the Union. The division took place specifically because the Republican Party was a strong anti-slavery party that opposed the pro-slavery platform of the Democratic Party.

This secession took place before Lincoln even took the oath of office. It took place because of what the southern states believed Lincoln would do after he took the oath of office. The Confederacy was formed in February of 1861, and in those days presidents were not sworn into office until March. President Buchanan allowed the Confederacy to take root, because he was sympathetic to its cause.

A Government, not a League

Hence, the overriding issue of the Civil War was about whether the states had a right to secede from the Union just because they didn’t like the results of the election.

In fact, thirty years before the Civil War, President Andrew Jackson had already faced the “secession crisis” (1828-1832) during his term of office (1829-1837). Tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe made the southern plantations less competitive with products from the north. Jackson was sympathetic to their cause but was staunchly against a state’s right to secede.

In this he was opposed by his own vice president (Calhoun, from South Carolina). South Carolina declared that it had the power to nullify any law of the United States and to secede from the Union. Jackson threatened to send troops, saying, "The Constitution... forms a government not a league... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."

Jackson pushed for the passage of the “Force Bill” authorizing the use of military force to enforce the Tariff law and any other federal law that individual states might try to nullify. At the same time, the Compromise Tariff Bill was set forth, lowering the tariffs to satisfy the southern states. Both were passed by Congress on March 1, 1833, which Jackson signed, and the threat of secession was removed. But Jackson, himself a southerner, established the precedent that the states did not have the right of secession and that that military force could be used to force compliance with federal law.

The American Form of Government

The American Constitution (1789) was written under the authority of the earlier Declaration of Independence (1776), which established that all rights come from God and that governments are established to protect those God-given rights. This placed government under obligation to God Himself (called the “Creator”).

Government has no right, then, to grant rights. Whatever it grants are mere privileges. This is (or was) the basis of the American form of government. The problem came when, in the wake of the Civil War, the government was said to grant citizenship rights and voting rights to all people. It should have been proclaimed that the government was merely enforcing the rights that God had already granted to all men equally.

But many people did not make this distinction, and so the uniquely American idea of government under God began to be obscured. Eventually, under President Roosevelt in the 1930’s, this was lost completely, and the government began to be “secularized” under the atheistic principle of Socialism. Men began to remove God from government in the guise of the separation of Church and State. Government became the highest power in the nation, and the men in power assumed power to do as they pleased, “granting” rights as they saw fit.

This fundamental change from God’s government to men’s government resulted in the loss of the original Republic as conceived by the founders. In a real sense, it was the same problem in Israel that brought about the reign of Saul. We read in 1 Samuel 8:7, 8,

⁷ The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. ⁸ Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.”

This is the fundamental issue today. It began a long time ago, and America has repeated the problem. But if you listen carefully to Donald Trump’s speech last night, you will note that he was telling us that he intends to return America to the rule of the Creator. This is why so many hate him and oppose what he is doing. They opposed him even before he came into office. The present Civil War started the day of his election in 2016, even as the first Civil War began immediately after Lincoln’s election in 1860.

Just as Lincoln wanted to extend God-given rights to every race of people, so also does Trump want to extend God-given rights to people “born or unborn.” Abortionists hate Trump for upholding the rights of the unborn, every bit as much as the slave-holders hated Lincoln for wanting to extend God-given rights to their slaves.

That is what I heard in Trump’s speech last night. I believe that the time of men’s rule is ending and that God will regain His right to rule that which He has created. As Christians, it is our duty to uphold God’s rights.

Impeached or Not!!

HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO IMPEACH TRUMP

By Dr. Stephen Jones:  Dec 19, 2019

Blog Post Date: 12-20-2019

Here is the final result of last night’s impeachment vote.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html

It was essentially a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting “no” and all but 2 or 3 Democrats voting “yes.”

A High Standard for Impeachment

This was precisely the nightmarish situation that our founders tried to avoid. First, they set the standard very high so as to make only very serious crimes like treason and bribery worthy of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 reads:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason itself was defined in Article III, Section 3,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Even murder is not an impeachable offense, since not even a congressman could be charged with murder if it were done on the floor of the House. (Believe it or not!) The biggest weakness of this provision comes over the definition of “Enemies.” This is why Congress insists on defining Russia as an “Enemy.” It was also behind the “Trading With the Enemies Act" of 1919 and its extension in 1933, when it defined all US citizens as “enemies.” This has allowed the new Socialist “Democracy” and their intelligence agencies opportunity to subvert the constitution’s intent and to enslave and oppress the people.

Article IV, Section 4 reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Apparently, this was later interpreted to mean that the United States itself (federal government) was allowed to change itself into a Democracy. Only the individual states themselves were guaranteed a Republican form of government.

Division of Power: House and Senate

Our founders split up the power by giving the House the power to draw up Articles of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2 says,

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

In 1813 the Judiciary Committee was established and was given the power to do any impeachment investigations. This was largely breached in 2019 when Speaker Pelosi assigned the House Intelligence Committee, under Adam Schiff, to hold the hearings. Only when these were completed was this passed on to the Judiciary Committee under Jerry Nadler to give it the appearance of legitimacy.

The White House and Republican House members saw this unprecedented rule change as an abuse of power. But since the Constitution itself did not say anything about which particular committee was supposed to call for such hearings, the Democrats were able to use this loophole for their own partisan advantage.

Other rule changes, however, were more problematic, as they did not allow the participation of White House lawyers, nor did they give Republicans the right to call their own witnesses. This caused Trump to refuse to allow any of his cabinet members to testify, invoking executive privilege, which has since been upheld by the courts.

Nonetheless, all but three of the House Democrats voted to impeach Trump on the grounds of “Obstruction.” It is not likely that this charge will be validated by the courts.

The founders also gave the Senate the sole power to try the case, and even this was to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to limit partisanship and ensure that all is done in a Constitutional manner. This is found in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

This Constitutional provision was another attempt to limit partisanship in the event that the party controlling the House did not like a president from an opposing party. Yesterday’s impeachment vote shows the wisdom of this provision, although the Democrats are trying to spin this as Republican partisanship in the Senate.

What the House Democrats have done is to set a precedent, whereby any time in the future, when a president from one party does anything that the House majority party dislikes, it is guaranteed that the House will impeach him. This breakdown in our federal government, if not corrected immediately, could mean that the House will always spend more time impeaching than in legislating. This would subvert the very purpose of congress.

Fortunately, our founders foresaw such possible problems and split power between the House and Senate. The partisanship of the House Democrats has put the Senate Republicans in the mood to engage in the same partisan behavior in return. It would be better to treat the Articles of Impeachment seriously, just to avoid such a partisan precedent.

Two Articles of Impeachment

Even though the House Democrats, at the beginning, charged Trump with treason and bribery over his telephone call with the Ukrainian president last July, those charges were mysteriously dropped when the Articles of Impeachment were actually drawn up. The Articles charged the president with (1) Abuse of power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.

Article 1

“Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.

This is based solely on Trump’s use of the word “us” when he asked Zelensky to “help us out” in investigating possible crimes committed by Joe Biden (while he was Vice President). Though the context in the transcript shows quite clearly that he was referring to “us” as the USA itself, the Democrats chose to interpret “us” as Trump’s re-election campaign.

If the president had actually meant “us” in the way that the Democrats took it, why was he so eager to release the telephone transcript? Surely he would have known better! This Impeachment Article relies upon an unintended interpretation of a single word, which, at best, was obscure. No “witnesses” (by their own admission in the hearings) had any first-hand knowledge of any crime. The only reason they were allowed to testify was because the House Democrats changed the rules to allow hearsay.

The main whistleblower’s identity was concealed in order to hide the fact that he was one of Adam Schiff’s own office staff. Another’s testimony was what he read in the New York Times. By those standards, I could have qualified as a witness, too! It was surreal and little more than a circus to entertain their constituents.

Even if Trump had done exactly what the Democrats have charged, it would hardly rise to the level of treason or bribery, in spite of these claims. But all previous presidential impeachments have failed because their impeachment articles have not risen to the level needed to actually impeach a president.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1865 for firing his Secretary of War, even though any president has the right to fire a cabinet member. Clinton was impeached for his use of the word “is” when giving false testimony about his sex life in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. Nixon resigned before impeachment for spying on the Democrats in the Watergate scandal, but even that hardly rises to the high levels of Treason and Bribery that the founders intended.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/an-impeachment-role-for-the-supreme-court/

Pelosi’s Delaying Tactic

Now that the impeachment vote has been taken, Nancy Pelosi is now considering a new tactic. She is thinking of burying the Articles of Impeachment instead of passing them off to the Senate for trial. Here is an article that speculates on her political reasons:

https://ncrenegade.com/editorial/a-possibility-which-i-do-not-want-to-consider/

No one questions the political prowess of Nancy Pelosi. So what was the purpose of impeaching a President if she knows it will be dismissed in the Senate? What if she does not submit the impeachment request to the Senate until after Donald Trump is reelected? At that point, she could claim that his election was invalid because he was still under a pending House impeachment….

If this premise is correct and the 2020 re-election of Trump is thrown into question, who will be in charge until this is resolved? After the expiration of Trump’s first term in January, both Trump and Pence would not hold office. The Constitution then appoints the Speaker of the House to be President.

Would she really try to become president in that way? Could she do so without causing a civil war? Probably not. The article below tells us why:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/pollak-senate-can-acquit-even-if-house-doesnt-transmit-articles-of-impeachment-constitution/

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That is all….

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

Case closed.

What a mess we are in! Who could have guessed how the Babylonians would thrash around as their beloved Babylon collapses before their eyes. It is a painful process, but we need to view these events as evidence of the end of an age and the end of a long-standing rule of the beast empires in Daniel 7.

There is no need to fear, since God will do what He will do, regardless of what men do and regardless of our opinions of what God is doing. We may misunderstand everything, but this will have little or no effect on the outcome of the divine plan.

TRUMP IS NOT YET IMPEACHED OFFICIALLY

Dec 20, 2019

This is one for the Supreme Court, no doubt.

Although the House Democrats voted to impeach president Trump on December 18, Nancy Pelosi has refused to make it official by presenting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. Does that mean Trump is yet under no impeachment restrictions?

In the past, the House has always presented the paperwork to the Senate promptly, and until the trial has ended with an acquittal, the president has not been allowed to sign anything into law nor to appoint anyone to political or judicial positions.

But what happens when the Speaker of the House refuses to follow through and to make the impeachment official?

Speaker Pelosi’s stated motive is that she wants first to see the rules for the impending trial that Senate leader, Mitch McConnel, will establish. What? Is she trying to negotiate with the Senate to make rules that favor her own interests? What if McConnell had done this last summer when the House made up its own rules for the investigation?

Would not that be classed as interference? What gives the Speaker of the House any authority to influence what the Senate does?

McConnell does not seem to be in any mood to cave to Pelosi’s interference. In fact, it seems likely that the Senate does not even need to be given those Articles of impeachment to hold a trial. If that is the case, Pelosi has no power to delay that trial.

Since this is unprecedented in US history, it seems likely that this question will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, along with the very legality and constitutionality of the House’s impeachment itself. In other words, by refusing to allow Trump’s witnesses and lawyers to defend him or to question his accusers, as was always allowed in the past, did the House violate his constitutional rights?

If this goes to the Supreme Court, they may nullify the impeachment altogether.

The point is, there has been a lot of prophecy in the past saying, “Trump will never be impeached.” I have questioned this statement, because it calls into question the definition of impeachment. Do these prophecies apply to the House impeaching Trump, or to the Senate convicting him?

Pelosi has brought up a third scenario by her unprecedented political antics. It might be that even though the House votes for impeachment, it will never become official, either because the paperwork will never be given to the Senate, or because the Supreme Court will nullify it.

It may be, too, that Pelosi is trying to make it impossible for Trump to appoint a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is said to be in serious ill health. She does not want to retire, because her replacement would no doubt have a different legal philosophy. The Supreme Court could be turned “conservative” for a generation.

SOMETHING BIG IS COMING

Dec 20, 2019

The day after the House voted to impeach the president, Q posted on December 19 in Post #3728,

POTUS was not harmed in any way today other than on paper (history books).
Sometimes you must sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
“I will gladly take all those slings and arrows for you.” – POTUS
But, even that, can be undone.
The enormity of what is coming will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Pray.
Q

Q seems confident that this impeachment vote came as no surprise but was actually planned for and accounted for ahead of time.

I’m not sure what he means by: “But, even that, can be undone.”

If he means that the impeachment vote can be undone, then this either means that the Senate can simply acquit POTUS, or perhaps this suggests that Pelosi may never actually submit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Then, too, the Supreme Court might rule that the House violated the constitutional rights of POTUS.

There is nothing to do but grab some popcorn, sit back, and “watch the show,” as Q often says.

In Post #3738, dated December 19, Q follows up by posting an article about how Admiral Rogers disclosed FISA abuse in March of 2016 shortly after it happened. He posted,

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nsa-director-rogers-disclosed-fisa-abuse-days-after-carter-page-fisa-was-issued_2692033.html

Something BIG is coming.
Q

This could very well hint that the “BIG” event soon to come will involve the ex-FBI director, James Comey, or “James 8. Corney” as one official DOJ document calls him. (See 3^rd paragraph on the report at the link below.)

https://search.justice.gov/search?query=corney&op=Search&affiliate=justice

This “typo” is obviously intentional, but by whom is unclear. It is meant to be read: James ate corn and refers to earlier Q drops that picture cornfields and ripened corn.

Corn that is ripe for harvesting and eating is the DOJ code for arresting James Comey.

Will the Comey Report be released? I do not think that he will be arrested and charged officially prior to the release of the report investigating him. That is why I think the “BIG” event that Q anticipates has to do with the Comey report itself. But I may be wrong. Who knows?