Divemedic

My hobby used to be getting into nonpermissive environments. That is, places were the carrying of weapons was discouraged. I got fairly good at it, because I got pretty good at figuring out when someone’s security was shit. With that in mind, I want you to take a look at this checkpoint and their procedures. 

Note that the checkpoint is staffed by 3 NG troops from the PA NG. All three of them are armed with only an M4 each. and their weapons are all unloaded. 

They ask the driver for his ID, and claim they are doing a 100% ID check. That is demonstrably false, as they don’t ask to see the ID for either vehicle that preceeded the checked vehicle, nor did they check the ID of the operator of the camera. Then, once the driver produced his ID, the guy barely looked at it. 

They aren’t checking for shit. This security checkpoint is bullshit- it is there for show. Are they all like this?

I had a friend in the guard, and he once told me that when they wanted the NG to appear armed, but didn’t actually want them armed, they would be issued their weapon, but the bolt carrier would not be in the weapon. I am wondering if that is the case here- are these guys all show?

 As I was working to list the units detailed to the Army of the Potomac, I realized that this was not a productive use of time. Instead of cataloging WHO was there, I should be trying to discern WHY they are there. I have come up with a couple of ideas. 

We know that the election was stolen. We also know that the Capitol incursion was a false flag job. Since the attack was planned and put into motion DAYS before the President’s speech, this was not impromptu. Since Pelosi, the Mayor of DC, the Director of the FBI, and others KNEW about it and not only failed to act, but took positive steps to prevent others from acting, this was done under the direction of the Democrat party and its leaders. 

It’s obvious why the Capitol attack happened: It allowed both the assembly of the Army of the Potomac and the elimination of any opposing speech from the right. Ok, but WHY are they assembling this army? 

There are three reasons that I can think of:

1 They needed a large, negative event to shock the nation into accepting Trump being impeached. 

I don’t think that an event this large, along with the callup of two divisions of troops was needed to impeach Trump again. Also, why put all 50 states on alert? The powers doing this have a MUCH larger agenda in mind, or else they would not have pressed so hard.  

2. They are trying to silence those who claim that the election was stolen, thus preventing the nation from focusing on his illegitimate presidency. 

For the same reasons as above, I just don’t see this large of an event being needed to cover for a stolen election. I have seen the theory that this is being done to prevent actions being taken against the methods that were used to steal the election. This seems rather extreme. 

3. There is something MUCH larger coming. 

The election was stolen. Not in a subtle manner. It was done in such a way as to be obvious, in such a way that they KNEW it would be caught. So they either don’t care that they will be caught, or they WANTED to be caught. 

Then they fired up their base. Even the troops on TV are saying that they are proud to be defending against a “white supremacist revolution.” For years, we have heard those on the right say that the Army and our police would never fire on fellow Americans because they are our neighbors. Now they are saying “If it wasn’t my job, I would have done it for free. It was my privilege to help stop a white nationalist insurrection.” 

This worries me. My wife keeps telling me that all of this is just talk. She says to stop worrying because all of the talk of enemies lists, reeducation camps, and making it illegal to protest a stolen election are just that- talk. My wife has told me that, “They will never be able to pass any of that.” Sometimes I wonder if I am letting all of this get to me, but I see what I see. 

Why would anyone go to so much trouble? Or am I just seeing a conspiracy where there isn’t one?

EDITED TO ADD: I honestly don’t think that #1 or #2 are it, but I have to concede the possibility. After all, I have been wrong about things before. – Thanks to Big Country for pointing out that my ideas may be off base…

 Now it appears that the Governor of North Carolina has announced 100 more NG troops will be sent to Washington, DC:

All 300 guard members — serving in military police, engineering and armored brigade units based in Asheville, Clinton and Raeford — should be in place by Monday,

Now the Armored Brigade in Clinton, NC is the 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team. This is a heavy brigade with recent combat experience. So does this mean that they are bringing ARMOR? Or are they simply looking for warm bodies? The Clinton unit is the HHC, so I am not sure. 

The unit from Asheville is the 105th Military Police Battalion and the one from Raeford is the 105th Engineer Battalion.

Connecticut is sending 200 more. It looks to be a medical unit.

The deployments include “equipment and supplies” as well as personnel, including ambulances, the governor’s office said.

Pennsylvania is sending another 1,000 to join the 1,000 members of the 56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team already there. No word on which unit this addition is from. 

As of 21:50, New York is adding another 250. I don’t even know how many there are any more. 

Closer to (my) home, Governor Desantis activated an unspecified number of National Guard troops for duty inside of the State of Florida.  

Another interesting thing was this bit on rules of engagement for those units deployed in Washington, DC:

I know for instance that there is a detail of National Guard Bureau personnel up at the United States Capitol. They are complying with, and will comport with, the United States Capitol police’s use of force model. 

I wouldn’t bet on that. Remember that almost none of these troops have ever deployed or seen combat.  What do panicked, inexperienced people armed with automatic weapons do when they are scared and getting overrun?

 Can the Senate bar Donald J Trump from again holding the office of President?

An interesting question, and one that I think has been answered before. In  July of 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached by the House. Before his trial in the Senate could begin, the Senate expelled him and he left the Capitol to return to his home state of Tennessee. 

In January of 1799, the Senate finally began Blount’s impeachment trial, but Blount did not appear (he was already serving as the Speaker of the Tennessee Legislature). The trial commenced any way, and Blount’s  attorneys argued that since Blount had been expelled from the senate in July 1797, he was no longer an officer of the government and thus no longer subject to Senate jurisdiction.

In January of 1799, after three days of exhaustive arguments, the Senate deliberated behind closed doors, then voted on two resolutions. The first one failed to pass:

That William Blount was a civil officer of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore liable to be impeached by the House of Representatives; That as the articles of impeachment charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been committed while he was a Senator of the United States, his plea [to dismiss the charges] ought to be overruled.

The second one passed on January 11, 1799,  by a vote of 14–11:

The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed.

So you can see that the Senate of the United States in 1799 already answered that question. Now, you could argue that one Congress cannot pass a resolution that is binding on a following Congress, and I would agree with you. However, we are talking about the plain meaning of the Constitution here. 

The question that the Senate was trying to answer was whether or not they had the power of impeachment. Impeachment was a term from British common law which was the removal of an officer of the government from that office. If we were to decide that any citizen is impeachable, then this would turn the entire system of jury trials on its head by permitting the Congress to hold trials and punish them without the judicial branch. This would be a violation of the separation of powers.  

 Now word is coming out that the Army is having trouble getting state Governors to commit to sending any more troops than they have already. The limit of what governors can or will send in National Guard troops is rapidly being reached. What next? Does the Pentagon begin using Active duty troops?

 CNN’s Jade Sacker entering the Capitol with a member of BLM/Antifa cheering, “We did it!” And then asking her conspirator if he was filming, he said he’d delete it, he lied. CNN was in on it. CNN was embedded with BLM/Antifa pretending to be Trump supporters as they entered the Capitol.

This was a false flag. The entire thing was a setup from the beginning. There is no longer any doubt in my mind. Of course the left is claiming that this has been ‘debunked’ and that they were only there to “document” the event. 

 Last night, I complained that the troop surge in DC was hard to keep up with as the number of troops was increased to 21,000 with a possibility of 26,000. Now it has increased again, this time to 26,000 with a possibility of 30,000 troops.