re: The White House Will Be Q Posting Today

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

How USAID Built Color Revolution Infrastructure With NGOs

---

quote:

---

Everyone is arguing about whether USAID was wasteful. Nobody is explaining what it was actually for.
Yesterday the Daily Caller ran a piece noting that since Trump gutted USAID, right-wing candidates have swept Bolivia, Chile, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. The left hasn't won a single Latin American presidential election since the funding stopped. Meanwhile, Ro Khanna went on a podcast and said Elon Musk "possibly sentenced to death" 4.5 million children by dismantling USAID. Musk threatened to sue him.
The right points to USAID grants for transgender operas in Colombia and DEI workshops in Serbia and asks why American taxpayers were funding them. The left points to children who depended on foreign aid claims millions of deaths.
But both miss the purpose of true USAID.
USAID was one of Washington's primary instruments for regime change abroad. Beneath the humanitarian programs, the cultural initiatives, and the development projects sat a much larger objective: managing regime change and color revolutions across the globe.
Which raises an obvious question:
What does a transgender opera in Colombia have to do with regime change?
Quite a lot, as it turns out.
Read on.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

SpotLight17171717

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

On June 22, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) in an 85-5 bipartisan vote. It largely focused on boosting housing supply, cutting regulations, and restricting large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes.

THAT is pretty huge.

But, Tucked inside it was a notable provision: a statutory ban preventing the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC), but it was only through December 31, 2030.

THE GOOD

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order explicitly prohibiting federal agencies from establishing, issuing, or promoting a CBDC. President Trump also stated he will never allow a CBDC.

The New Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh has publicly described a U.S. CBDC as a “bad policy choice.” He does not like it at all. And The Fed has long maintained it would not pursue one without clear authorization from both Congress and the executive branch; which they do not have.

They do not have this (thank God) because many lawmakers, especially Republicans, view a government-issued digital currency as a tool for excessive surveillance and control over citizens’ financial transactions.

Despite how useless the GOP feels sometimes, we do have people fighting for a Stronger (Permanent) Ban:

- Rep. Anna Paulina Luna
- Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
- Even though I despise him, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and others who backed the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act and similar measures.

The ban also explicitly protects private, open, permissionless stablecoins, which many in the crypto community see as a positive distinction from a government-controlled digital dollar. That’s a big deal.

THE BAD, BUT IT’S JUST UGLY POLITICS

While the ban represents a significant policy win against CBDC, it is not permanent — it ends in 2030.

House Republicans and hardline conservatives pushed for a permanent ban.
To secure broader bipartisan support for the overall housing reforms (and to avoid derailing the larger bill), negotiators settled on a four-year moratorium.

The temporary nature allowed the legislation to move forward with strong majorities in both chambers while still delivering a clear statutory restriction on the Fed.

In short, the four-year limit was the price of getting the housing package across the finish line. After 2030, Congress could revisit the issue — either by renewing the ban, making it permanent, or allowing it to expire.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

The housing bill delivered some really great wins and the huge takeaway everyone is missing, they restricted large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes. That is absolutely HUGE!

And, although it’s not perfect, it is a win… for now, that we installed the first statutory limit on a potential Federal Reserve CBDC.

Who knows.. the FED might not even be there in the future. It’s very Likely.

This is nothing to lose sleep over.. so for now, stay the course. Keep fighting. And have a little faith and pray that God continue to steer the ship

---

quote:

---

Buried in the House's version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.

Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.

If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S. providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.

Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Firstly, this precludes from citizenship anyone who has renounced his citizenship and, thus, is no longer “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.

This would also preclude from citizenship persons who (1) have not gone through the naturalization process (which subjects them to the jurisdiction of the United States), or (2) who have been born in the United States, but who are not subject to the jurisdiction to the United States.

An infant minor, being under the legal tutelage of his parents, would therefore necessarily share the birthright citizenship of his parents. If his parents have American citizenship, his citizenship is American. If his parents have Italian citizenship, his citizenship is Italian.

If one parent has American citizenship and one has Italian citizenship, then the infant has dual-citizenship.

If both parents have American citizenship and their child in born prematurely during vacation in Italy, the child has American citizenship and does not have Italian citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is a function of the parental citizenship, not the geographical country of birth.

This is precisely what places the infant under “the jurisdiction of the United States”.

---