Is this post-election struggle meant to touch off civil war, to justify the Big Crackdown? (Long, but well worth reading)

We should do everything we can (whatever that is) to resist, and/or expose, the slide toward that apocalyptic split. 

From Stuart Davies (on Facebook, where its circulation has been hindered). (Stuart wrote this in relation to Dr. Mercola’s interview with Whitney Webb about Operation Warp Speed:

Does anyone else out there understand that we have been living under martial law since (at least) last January 31st? I was sorta half aware of that, but was thinking that although the foundation was definitely in place the actual military coup had yet to come. Silly me. It happened nearly a year ago, and the evidence has been right under everyone’s noses all along.

I’ve piqued your curiosity, right? So let’s just get right to the meat of the matter. I’ll first lay out the way this has manifested itself in my home state of Oregon, but this clearly applies across the entire US, and I have no doubt that if people dig into it they will find evidence that it applies in virtually (or literally) every single nation on earth. For those of you living in other states, dig out the relevant state laws that apply to the situation there. I think I can guarantee you that you will find very similar statutes in your state.

There are two Oregon laws in particular I want you to consider, one is this one:

And here is another very illuminating statute to consider:

I have been aware of the second one relating to ‘public health emergencies’ for months now, and have cited it and posted it several times previously. The latter one I just saw this morning, when I was reading an article on the stringent new lockdown regulations imposed by Oregon governor Kate Brown…she cited this first law above (ORS401) as the source of her authority for imposing her new lockdown measures.

If you click on the first link above you will get the definitions of ORS 401, and find the following interesting information:


Scroll down a ways and you will see this section:

401.052 Responsibilities of Office of Emergency Management. (1) The Office of Emergency Management is established in the Oregon Military Department.
(2) The office shall be responsible for:
(a) Coordinating and facilitating private sector and governmental efforts to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies; and
(b) Coordinating exercises and training, planning, preparedness, response, mitigation and recovery activities with state and local emergency services agencies and organizations.
(3) The office shall prepare a statewide emergency management plan and update the plan from time to time as necessary. [Formerly 401.257]
401.054 Liaisons with Office of Emergency Management.(1) Each of the following agencies, entities and officials shall designate an individual to act as a liaison with the Office of Emergency Management:
(a) The Department of Consumer and Business Services;
(b) The Department of Corrections;
(c) The Department of Education;
(d) The Department of Environmental Quality;
(e) The Department of Human Services;
(f) The Department of Justice;
(g) The Department of Land Conservation and Development;
(h) The Department of Public Safety Standards and Training;
(i) The Department of State Lands;
(j) The Department of State Police;
(k) The Department of Transportation;
(L) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs;
(m) The Employment Department;
(n) The Housing and Community Services Department;
(o) The Judicial Department;
(p) The Oregon Business Development Department;
(q) The Oregon Department of Administrative Services;
(r) The Oregon Department of Aviation;
(s) The Oregon Health Authority;
(t) The Oregon Military Department;
(u) The Oregon Tourism Commission;
(v) The Public Utility Commission of Oregon;
(w) The Secretary of State;
(x) The State Department of Agriculture;
(y) The State Department of Energy;
(z) The State Department of Fish and Wildlife;
(aa) The State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries;
(bb) The State Fire Marshal;
(cc) The State Forestry Department;
(dd) The State Marine Board;
(ee) The State Parks and Recreation Department;
(ff) The Travel Information Council; and
(gg) The Water Resources Department.
(2) Each agency, entity and official required to designate a liaison under this section shall designate an individual who has authority during an emergency to allocate resources and assets of the agency, entity or official.
(3) Each individual designated as a liaison under subsection (1) of this section shall assist in the coordination of the functions of the agency, entity or official that designated the individual that relate to emergency preparedness and response with similar functions of the Office of Emergency Management.401.062 Office of Emergency Management; appointment of director. (1) The Office of Emergency Management is under the supervision and control of a director, who is responsible for the performance of the duties, functions and powers of the office.
(2) The Adjutant General, with the approval of the Governor, shall appoint the Director of the Office of Emergency Management, who holds office at the pleasure of the Adjutant General.” 

In case anyone doesn’t know the meaning of ‘Adjutant General’, particularly as it applies here, here is the definition of that term:

“The adjutant of a unit having a general staff.(in the US Army) the chief administrative officer.

noun: the Adjutant General the senior officer in the National Guard of a US state.”

Okay, so in other words, the person in charge of preparing the statewide emergency management plan and administering every aspect of it, and having the power to take control of EVERY SINGLE MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, AND STATE LEVEL AGENCY – AND ALL OF THEIR PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT – to be used at their discretion and direction, is a director appointed by (and serving at the pleasure of, i.e., someone who can be fired at the discretion of) the SENIOR OFFICER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN OREGON.

And remember now, this is the statute our governor just cited as the source of her authority to arbitrarily impose extra-constitutional lockdown measures on Oregon citizens. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, I’m afraid.

The second law linked above is based upon the December 2001 “draft Model State Emergency Health Powers Act” drawn up by the CDC and The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, to ‘assist’ National Governors Association [NGA], National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], Association of State and Territorial Health Officials [ASTHO], and National Association of County and City Health Officials [NACCHO) in drafting their own state ‘public health emergency’ statutes. Have a look at the CDC/Johns Hopkins model and compare it to Oregon’s public health emergency law, and note how closely our law tracks their model:

Bear in mind that this CDC/Johns Hopkins public health emergency model for state laws was predicated on the anthrax attacks immediately following 9/11, which the FBI initially blamed on Mohammed Atta and his merry band of 9/11 ‘hijackers. Despite the trail of bread crumbs laid down months before 9/11 obviously intended to link Atta & Co to the anthrax attacks (a very interesting story in itself), it was soon necessary for the FBI to drop the accusation that they were the culprits when it was inadvertently revealed that the strain of weaponized anthrax could only have come from a tightly guarded US bioweapons lab.

Interestingly enough, Johns Hopkins University was a sponsor of the 1999 ‘Dark Winter’ exercise which was focused on a hypothetical bioweapon terrorist attack on the US using, guess what? Anthrax. 

On top of that, Johns Hopkins was also one of the key sponsors of the October 2019 ‘Event 201’ which hypothesized a pandemic from a novel coronavirus called Covid-19. These latter facts are old news to anyone who has been paying attention to what has been going on over the past two decades or so, but they certainly do tie into the specific provisions of ORS401 and numerous other state and federal statutes.

Okay, circling back to my opening paragraph and my assertion that we have been living under martial law since (at least) last January 31st. Anyone remember what happened that day? It was picked up and reported in the corporate media, but then (thanks to their relentless spin and bullshit regarding Trump in general) it was quickly buried and forgotten by the media, and therefor by most people. What happened on January 31, 2020 was this:

“To date, President Donald Trump has activated emergency powers under four separate statutes for the COVID-19 response. Trump declared a public health emergency under the Public Health Service Act on Jan. 31, issued two national emergency declarations under both the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act (NEA) on March 13, and invoked emergency powers via Executive Order under the Defense Production Act on March 18. On March 19, Trump named the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency in the COVID-19 emergency response efforts, a designation previously held by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These actions have varying implications but collectively allow the federal government to deliver virus response funds and other assistance to state and local government…

There are three sources of statutory authority for the federal government to issue an emergency declaration, each associated with varying procedures, resources and funding. These include the Stafford Act, Public Health Service Act and National Emergencies Act. As of March 13, emergencies have been declared under all three acts. Additionally, the Defense Production Act allows the President broad authorities to compel domestic industry production for the sake of national defense, including emergency activities under the Stafford Act.”

Scrolling down further in this last article detailing the federal statutes triggered by Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, we see this:

” Section 501(b) of the Stafford Act allows the president to declare an emergency without a request from the governor of the affected state when the primary responsibility for the emergency rests with the federal government. Such an emergency declaration does not prevent the governor from subsequently requesting a major disaster declaration for other unmet needs caused by the event.”

Further down we see the following:

“Emergency declarations under the Stafford Act activate the National Response Framework (NRF) which enables domestic response partners at all levels to provide a unified national response to disasters and emergencies. FEMA is likely to lead operational meetings, provide overall coordination, activate its interagency emergency operations center at FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C., and activate all 10 FEMA regional offices to directly support states in their regions. Below are important details for states, specific to the coronavirus declaration.

“Governors must work with the applicable FEMA regional administrators within their FEMA region to create and execute a FEMA-State Agreement—a document that “Imposes binding obligations on FEMA, State or Territory, local governments and private nonprofits.”

Ah, yes – FEMA. That brings us around to the little matter called ‘Continuity of Government’ directives. Here is some history from the Reagan years that most have either forgotten or never knew about:

“In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution.

As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.[1]
Brooks was responding to a story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald. Chardy’s story alleged that Oliver North was involved with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in plans  to take over federal, state and local functions during a national emergency. This planning for “Continuity of Government” (COG) called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law.”[3]

Mann and Bamford did report that, from the beginning, two of the key COGplanners on the secret committee were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two men who implemented COG under 9/11.[6] What they and Weiner did not report was that under Reagan the purpose of COGplanning had officially changed: it was no longer for arrangements “after a nuclear war,” but for any “national security emergency.” This was defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United   States.”[7]

In other words extraordinary emergency measures, originally designed for an America devastated in a nuclear attack, were now to be applied to anything the White House considered an emergency.

What few have recognized is that, nearly a decade later, some aspects of COG remain in effect. COG plans are still authorized by a proclamation of emergency that has been extended each year by presidential authority, most recently by President Obama in September 2009. COG plans are also the probable source for the 1000-page Patriot Act presented to Congress five days after 9/11, and also for the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame — a ten-year plan, initiated in September 2001, to expand detention camps, at a cost of $400 million in Fiscal Year 2007 alone.[12]

At the same time we have seen the implementation of the plans outlined by Chardy in 1987: the warrantless detentions that Oliver North had planned for in Rex 1984, the warrantless eavesdropping that is their logical counterpart, and the militarization of the domestic United States under a new military command, NORTHCOM.[13]  Through NORTHCOM the U.S. Army now is engaged with local enforcement to control America.

We learned that COG planning was still active in 2007, when President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51). This, for the sixth time, extended for one year the emergency proclaimed on September 14,  2001. It empowered the President to personally ensure “continuity of government” in the event of any “catastrophic emergency.” He announced that NSPD 51 contains “classified Continuity Annexes” which shall “be protected from unauthorized disclosure.”

One Congressman explained to a constituent that the provisions of the National Emergencies Act have now been rendered inoperative by COG. If true, this would seem to justify Chardy’s description of COG as suspension of the Constitution. Are there other parts of the Constitution that have been suspended? We do not know, and the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee has been told he cannot find out.

Plans drafted by a secret committee, including corporation heads not in the government, have provided rules that allegedly override public law and the separation of powers that is at the heart of the Constitution.” https ://

That informative article was from 11 years back, the following Newsweek article is from earlier in 2020:

“…COVID-19 pandemic raises the fear that huge swaths of the executive branch or even Congress and the Supreme Court could also be disabled, forcing the implementation of “continuity of government” plans that include evacuating Washington and “devolving” leadership to second-tier officials in remote and quarantined locations.

But Coronavirus is also new territory…and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called “extraordinary circumstances.

“Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law.

“According to new documents and interviews with military experts, the various plans – codenamed Octagon, Freejack and Zodiac – are the underground laws to ensure government continuity. They are so secret that under these extraordinary plans, “devolution” could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America.

“On February 1, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper signed orders directing NORTHCOM to execute nationwide pandemic plans. Secretly, he signed Warning Orders (the WARNORD as it’s called) alerting NORTHCOM and a host of east coast units to “prepare to deploy” in support of potential extraordinary missions.Seven secret plans – some highly compartmented – exist to prepare for these extraordinary missions. When might the military’s “emergency authority” be needed? Traditionally, it’s thought of after a nuclear device goes off in an American city. But now, planners are looking at military response to urban violence as people seek protection and fight over food. And, according to one senior officer, in the contingency of the complete evacuation of Washington.

“Under Defense department regulations, military commanders are authorized to take action on their own – in extraordinary circumstances – where “duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation.” The conditions include “large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” involving “food riots” or “loss of life or wanton destruction of property.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff codified these rules in October 2018, reminding commanders that they could decide, on their own authority, to “engage temporarily”in military control in circumstances “where prior authorization by the President is impossible” or where local authorities “are unable to control the situation.”

“In scenarios where one city or one region is devastated, that’s a pretty straightforward process,” the military planner told me. “But with coronavirus, where the effect is nationwide, we’re in territory we’ve never been in before.”

Speaking of “large scale civil disturbances where military commanders are authorized to take action on their own …(when) duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation”, it certainly appears that any of a multitude of possible ‘civil war’ scenarios might fit the bill for such a response, doesn’t it? And what do we have here, with this report from the “Transition Integrity Project” released back in way back in June?
[This quote from TIP is quite long—MCM]
“In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis scenario planning exercises. The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming. We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape.
“The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period of contestation stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots. This period of uncertainty provides opportunities for an unscrupulous candidate to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and to set up an unprecedented assault on the outcome. Campaigns, parties, the press and the public must be educated to adjust expectations starting immediately.
“•A determined campaign has opportunity to contest the election into January 2021. We anticipate lawsuits, divergent media narratives, attempts to stop the counting of ballots, and protests drawing people from both sides. President Trump will very likely use the executive branch to aid his campaign strategy, including through the Department of Justice. We assess that there is a chance the president will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions –including illegal actions –to defy the popular vote. Federal laws provide little guidance for how Congress should resolve irregularities when they convene in a Joint Session on January 6, 2021. Of particular concern is how the military would respond in the context of uncertain election results.
“In June 2020, TIP organized four scenario exercises to identify risks to the rule of law or to the integrity of the democratic process in the period between Election Day(November 3, 2020)and Inauguration Day(January 20, 2021), with an eye toward mitigation and/or prevention of worst-case outcomes.
“The four scenarios were developed after a consultative process involving outreach to experts on elections and transitions, political violence and instability, governance, and scenario planning and game design. Each of the four scenarios developed was different.
“In one scenario, the exercise posited that the winner of the election was not known as of the morning after the election and the outcome of the race was too close to predict with certainty; in another, the exercise began with the premise that Democratic party candidate Joe Biden won the popular vote and the Electoral College by a healthy margin; The fourth exercise began with the premise that Biden won both the popular vote and the Electoral College by a narrow margin. 
“Sixty-seven people participated as active “players” in one or more of the scenario exercises, while dozens more participated in the exercises as observers and offered feed back during debriefing sessions. Participants included members of both major political parties, former high-ranking government officials (including, for example, two former governors), senior political campaigners, nationally prominent journalists and communications professionals, social movement leaders, and experts on politics, national security, democratic reform, election law, and media.
“During the exercises, winning “the narrative” emerged as a potentially decisive factor. Either side can expand or contract the “margin of contestation” if they succeed in substantially changing how key decision makers and the public view the “facts,” the risks of action or inaction, or external events such as civil unrest. An integrated strategy of legal contestation, political leadership, mass mobilization, and messaging is much stronger…
“A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power, not through the courts. The scenario exercises developed by TIP were designed to encourage both the Biden and Trump teams to pursue plausible but aggressive actions in order to win. The exercises demonstrated that the very first “move” by each campaign was often decisive; it established a narrative and the overall strategy. In all four of the exercises TIP conducted, Team Trump immediately adopted a strategy of casting doubt on the official election results, even in the one scenario where he later accepted a loss. Team Trump also encouraged chaos and violence in the streets and aimed to provoke Team Biden into subverting norms —even as Team Trump itself sabotaged traditional norms—so that Team Biden could be accused of hypocrisy or illegality. During the exercises, Team Trump and GOP elected officials took the following steps:
•Calling for recounts in all states in which victory was not already apparent.
•Launching coordinated investigations at the state and federal levels into alleged “voting irregularities” in an effort to undermine public confidence in results that did not go Trump’s way and/or alter the results.
•Attempting to halt the counting of mail-in ballots by filing cases in state court or leaning on Re-publican leaders to stop vote counting or to certify a result early, without waiting for the certified results from the Secretary of State.
•Turning out their well-organized and committed base to take to the streets in Trump’s favor, in part by disseminating disinformation about the danger posed by pro-Biden demonstrators.
•Using federal agencies to justify or support Trump campaign tactics. In one of the more aggressive moves undertaken in one of the TIP exercises, Team Trump had Attorney General Bill Barr order the seizure of mail-in ballots to ensure that vote counting would stop.
“Biden’s strategic assets include Democratic governors and Secretaries of State in swing states(notably in North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); a broadly shared sense in the Democratic Party that current voting systems, as well as the electoral college, are structurally anti-democratic; and a wide-spread and deeply-held desire, on the part of Democrats nation wide, to move on from the chaos of the Trump administration. In all the scenarios examined in TIP’s exercises, even as votes were still being counted, Team Biden moved quickly to try to project an ability to govern, by announcing cabinet nominees, an agenda for the first 100 days, and bipartisan support for its administration. During the exercises, Team Biden and Democratic elected officials took the following steps:
•Organizing1,000 “influencers” to denounce efforts to steal the election.
•Organizing all living presidents to stand with Biden and denounce Trump administration efforts to subvert the democratic process.
•Recruiting moderate Republican Governors such as Baker (MA) and Hogan(MD)to form an “Election Protection” Coalition.
•Working with local Democratic elected officials to call on the Adjutant General of the National Guard, along with representatives from the technology sector, to monitor vote counting.
•Organizing a bipartisan “National Day for Restoration of Democracy” and a “National Day of Unity,” both including faith leaders.
•Attempting a capital strike and a work stoppage as part of an overall effort to push corporate leaders to insist that all ballots to be counted.
“The exercise identified the following presidential powers as most likely to be misused to manipulate electoral outcomes or disrupt the transition: the President’s ability to federalize the national guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically; his ability to launch investigations into opponents; and his ability to use Department of Justice and/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on election results or discredit his opponents. 
“The President and key members of his administration can also reference classified documents without releasing them, manipulate classified information, or selectively release classified documents for political purposes, fueling manufactured rumors.
“Participants noted that additional presidential powers subject to misuse include the ability to the freeze assets of individuals and groups the president determines to be a threat, and his ability to restrict internet communications in the name of national security. Many participants expressed concern that the Department of Justice has been politicized and would be used to provide legal cover for the President’s actions.
“During TIP’s exercises, Team Biden almost always called for and relied on mass protests to demonstrate the public’s commitment to a “legitimate” out come, with the objective of hardening the resolve of Democratic elected officials to fight and take action, and to dramatize the stakes. As a practical matter, however, participants in the exercise noted that racial justice activists and others will likely act independently of the Biden campaign–players repeatedly cautioned that these social movements are independent, not beholden to, or a tool of, the Democratic party.
“In addition, the exercises suggest that there is a significant possibility of simultaneous street mobilizations by both Trump and Biden supporters, in which case the possibility for violence will increase significantly, and the actions of law enforcement will become critical.
“Trump can rely on surrogates to embed operatives inside protests to encourage violent action, and he can mobilize a range of law enforcement actors (including National Guard troops, whether federalized or under the control of GOP governors) who might, without proper training or if led by politicized actors, escalate matters. In some scenarios examined by TIP, Team Trump succeeded in invoking the Insurrection Act and sending active duty military troops into US cities to “restore order,” “protect” voting places, or confiscate “fraudulent” ballots.
“Everyone interested in protecting the legitimacy of the election and transition planning processes needs to make plans now for how to respond in the event of a crisis.
•If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions.•Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here.
•Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization. If there is a crisis, almost every strategy to protect the democratic process is dependent on mass mobilization, and in particular, on people taking peacefully to the streets in large numbers, potentially for an extended period. Large, base-building groups on the progressive side will need to anchor this strategy, but their success will likely depend on supporting and resourcing new and emerging racial justice leaders, many of whom are not affiliated with formal institutions and coalitions.”
There are several things I find especially interesting about this document. One is the virtual certainty among the designers and participants that there would be a close election, with results that would almost certainly not be accepted by the loser in either case.
This predicted sudden refusal to accept the outcome of an election is extraordinary when considered in the light of the extensively documented election fraud that has occurred repeatedly in the last 20 years, especially 2000, 2004, and 2016. 
The evidence of this mass election fraud has been a completely taboo subject within the corporate media up until now, and also similarly unmentionable within the entire red and blue party establishments. More tellingly, this complicity in maintaining a wall of silence on the issue of mass election fraud has extended to the ostensibly victimized losing candidate and their party in every single case in the past.
Yet suddenly there has been an abrupt 180 degree about face on this issue from all sides, and not just after the fact, but telegraphed by all sides months before the election took place.
Then there is the repeated assertion that the ultimate outcome of this inevitably contested election would be determined by a “street fight, not a legal battle”, with “mass mobilization, people taking to the streets in large numbers”, and “a significant possibility of simultaneous street mobilizations by both Trump and Biden supporters, in which case the possibility for violence will increase significantly, and the actions of law enforcement will become critical”. All made more ominous by the specter of a federalized national guard or an invocation of “the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty military domestically”.
And the latter, as is easily seen from the documentation presented above, is already a fact without any formal invocation of the Insurrection Act predicated by their civil war scenarios which have been coming to fruition as foreseen with such remarkable prescience.
But why on earth should anyone make this remarkable assumption that the ultimate outcome would be determined by a “street fight, not a legal battle”? In this context, it is instructive to recall what transpired in the most glaringly public mass election fraud event in the past, the 2000 presidential election which was decided by the Supreme Court stepping in and stopping a vote recount in Florida mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. Even though it was publicized later that the recount would have shown that Gore won the state of Florida and thus the election, the matter was dropped by all sides with that outrageous US Supreme Court ruling which handed an illegitimate ‘win’ to Bush and Cheney.
The assumptions of this whole ‘Transition Integrity Project’ exercise simply do not stand up to logical scrutiny. On its face, it can be seen as pure propaganda that makes no pretense of hiding its ‘anti-Trump’ bias, and yet at the same time its uncanny and detailed accuracy in predicting events subsequent to its release makes it read in retrospect like a script, or more accurately like an excerpt from a larger script. So much so, in fact, that it seems entirely reasonable to expect that events around this ‘contested election’ will continue to unfold in the next few months more or less as they have projected. Up until the climax scenes – that will bifurcate into an endless range of possible script scenarios, and at this point we can only guess at the possible details of how it will go down.
Of course, they had no intention of presenting us with their full script in this report, that will remain hidden from the public in much the same way as those “classified Continuity Annexes” which shall “be protected from unauthorized disclosure.” I think we can rest assured that it will be high drama indeed, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans (not to mention most of the rest of the global population) will be choosing ‘sides’, and backing their favored champion in this made for television, pro wrestling tag team ‘street fight’. And once their sick drama has reached its crescendo, we will almost certainly find ourselves with a military/FEMA government right out in the open, right in time for ‘Operation Warp Speed’ to kick off as scheduled on January 21, 2020 – the day after the inauguration of the next quisling in chief of the United Corporate States of America.
Further predictions a bit further down the pike? Mandatory covid ‘vaccinations’ for all, with indefinite detention in ‘quarantine camps’ for all who refuse to be tested or vaccinated.”

4 replies on “Is this post-election struggle meant to touch off civil war, to justify the Big Crackdown? (Long, but well worth reading)”

None of these emergency laws is actually constitutional. The founders knew of emergencies and made no provision for it, except in case of rebellion (which is bad enough.) We should have at least tried to fight these laws in the courts because the federal government has no authority to do half the sh*t it does. The agencies aren’t even constitutional. No one seems to care about the constitution because now it seems too late. But that is still the remedy. People with resources should have acted. They are professional class losers. Now it’s take your chances here, which are not acceptable, or go to Mexico and take chances with the drug lords. What say you???

If the past is prologue, expect this to worsen. The pandemic did not discourage people sufficiently, so crackdowns will continue. We have a slim chance to expose this now by mass warnings, and waking people up from their oxygen deprived stupor. They must be shown that they are gradually starving themselves to death by asphyxiation. They must realize that the government actively is working to enable their death. They must resist for their children’s sake and the world and for immortality. All else erases us from signifying as deserving of this life we were given.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.