-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings- PART 4

a reply to: carewemust

Can you point to which appropriation in the $80B increase is earmarked for something that could be used for the wall?

a reply to: RadioRobert


Did you see my question/reply earlier? Thanks again.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: carewemust

Can you point to which appropriation in the $80B increase is earmarked for something that could be used for the wall?

Certainly... It's best explained by AnkhMorpork here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The President presents a budget. Congress presents appropriation bills for discretionary spending for signature into law. Each subcommittee gets to decide how they want to authorize spending (or appropriate funds- hence appropriation bills) in their arena of oversight. There are 12 in total. If they get out of committee it gets voted on like any other bill. If they (the parties) wrap all the bills together into a big bill, it's an "omnibus spending bill".
So really, the difference is nothing. Practically it makes it tougher (politically) for the POTUS to veto unpopular items and riders because it can hold up all the other spending appropriations. As opposed to if they sent multiple bills where the president could say, "I like the defense bill. I'm signing it. I hate the education bill. Send it back"

a reply to: carewemust

I don't see any particular line item listed in that post for discretionary spending that could be used for "the wall".

a reply to: RadioRobert


Isn't there evidence that Obama was able to move funds in other directions? (and signed almost precisely the same letter that the President did which may authorize this legally).

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

*citation needed


There were certainly times he didn't spend the money Congress allocated. That isn't the same thing.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: RadioRobert


Isn't there evidence that Obama was able to move funds in other directions? (and signed almost precisely the same letter that the President did which may authorize this legally).

He tried, and got slapped on the backside, because he is neither stable, nor a genius.

Judge Rules Administration Illegally Delivering Funds To Insurers Participating In Obamacare

Today, a federal judge sided with the House of Representatives in a major lawsuit challenging executive branch overreach, ruling that the Obama administration has been making illegal payments to health insurance companies participating in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.

The issue raised by the House of Representatives lawsuit is that the executive branch cannot spend money without a congressional appropriation since Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Today, Judge Collyer agreed, writing “Paying out [cost-sharing subsidies] without an appropriation violates the Constitution. Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

Emphasis mine.

a reply to: CoramDeo


Isn't Congress currently led by the Republicans? Are they bound by spending caps? Can they move funds around? Obama had a majority at the time didn't he?

a reply to: CoramDeo

He (Obama) enabled a 10 year, $716 Billion transfer from Medicare (Senior Citizens), to the ObamaCare (Under Age 65) system.
www.dailysignal.com...

It made many Republicans in Congress very angry. The Obama-friendly mainstream media didn't say anything.

a reply to: carewemust

ACA was a law. Passed by Congress. Reappropriating money through Congress is not the same as simply spending otherwise allocated money elsewhere.

Congress passed a law and appropriation bill re: ACA. To do that, they "raided" future budgeting from Medicare. It's not at all the same thing as Obama unilaterally deciding to spend defense money on schools or money for tanks on ships. It doesn't work that way.
Like I said before, their best avenue might be to appropriate money to a vague line item with no riders. But I haven't seen one of those. I see a lot of people saying, "well, now he can do whatever he wants!" Which isn't true (or helpful).

Can Congress move money around? Sure! Through appropriation bills. Like this one. Where they failed utterly to deliver the President's agenda with funding.

a reply to: RadioRobert


I don't want to get into a Non-Q-related discussion, so I'll just say that I THINK the Army Corp of Engineers can build the wall, with funds allocated to the Department of Defense.

SES&SERCO&G4S ...

Global power structure is similar to larger IT projects ... you have almost independent layers in one stack (country/region), such layer may or may not be implemented in other stacks (countries).

Everything perfectly compartmentalized, so almost invisible while in plain sight.

a reply to: carewemust

We don't need a wall and there will never be a wall. What we have now we will still have when trump is long gone. You know this isn't going anywhere. What happened to Mexico is going to pay for the wall? That fell flat on its face didn't it. Mexico looked at him and said Get real dude.

Re: RED CASTLE/GREEN CASTLE

castle
noun [ C ] US ​ /ˈkæs·əl/ ​

a large building with strong walls, built in the past by a king or other important person for protection against attack

dictionary.cambridge.org...

A 'Castle' is literally defined by large, strong, walls...designed and built by a kingdom's leader to defend against invaders and keep citizens safe.

"CASTLE" could very well be a code word for 'THE WALL'...
RED CASTLE = Wall NOT FUNDED
GREEN CASTLE = Wall FUNDED

The US Army Corps of Engineers symbolism also plays well into the word's use here,...contributing double meaning, indicating the means by which it may ultimately be constructed.

Donald J. Trump ‏
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
3h3 hours ago

Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!

twitter.com...
(Highlighting mine)

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Re: RED CASTLE/GREEN CASTLE

castle
noun [ C ] US ​ /ˈkæs·əl/ ​

a large building with strong walls, built in the past by a king or other important person for protection against attack

dictionary.cambridge.org...

A 'Castle' is literally defined by large, strong, walls...designed and built by a kingdom's leader to keep invaders out.

"CASTLE" could very well be a code word for 'THE WALL'...
RED CASTLE = Wall NOT FUNDED
GREEN CASTLE = Wall FUNDED

The US Army Corps of Engineers symbolism also plays well into the word's use here,...contributing double meaning, indicating the means by which it may ultimately be constructed.

Donald J. Trump ‏
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
3h3 hours ago

Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!

twitter.com...
(Highlighting mine)

Now the question is does "M" mean military or something else.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: nhanon

My research on who Ann Boleyn is, assuming you mean King Henry VIII's second wife, rather than another, living, one:

Ann Boleyn geneaology:
daughter of - Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire, 1477-1539 (62),
son of - Sir William Boleyn, High Sherriffs of Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk 1451-1505 (54),
son of - Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, II, Lord Mayor of london 1406-1463 (see City of London thread),
son of - Sir Geoffrey Boleyn I, 1380-1440 (60),
son of - Thomas Boleyn, 1350-1411 (61),
son of - John Boleyne, 1300-1349 (49),
son of - Nicholas Boleyne, 1260-? (?),
son of - John 1 Boleyne, 1195:1255-?
son of - Simone de Boleyne,
son of - William de Boleyne,
son of - Faramus de Boleyne, b.1069,
son of - Godfrey de Boulogne, b. 1060-1100 (40),
son of - Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, 1020-1087 (67), in Bayeaux Tapestry!,
son of - Eustace I, Count of Boulogne, 989-1049 (60), founder of House of Boulogne,
son of - Baldwin II, Count of Boulogne, 976-1033, (57),
son of - Arnulf III, Count of Boulogne, 950-990 (40),
son of - Arnulf II Count of Boulogne, 924-972 (48),
son of - Adelolf Count of Boulogne, 891-933 (42),
son of - Baldwin II "The Bald", Count of Flanders, Artois, Boulogne, and Temois KING OF JERUSALEM, 863-918 (55),
son of - Baldwin I, Count of Flanders, 835-879 (44),

Note that in Ann Boleyns era life expectancy in UK was 34, so above 50% to 80% greater than the norm! (Life expectancy over time map)

Family shield from generation after King of Jerusalm (918) was a gold shield with 3 red circles (Rothschild?):

Family shield from 1320s through to Ann Boleyn:

with eception of 2 generations...where Family shield was:

Some similarities with Rothschild Coat of Arms make up!

Excellent

Someone pointed me to this long excellent article about the funding of German, wwii, skull and bones, and plans to extract the wealth after the war ended
What is interesting are two keywords
Red Castle
Bridge

As in the true story of a bridge too far and why it was thwarted to assist the globalist extracting the german wealth with their 9 month plan

As I point out they're lessons in the past that unlock insight into Q posts

It is interesting, if we take this article and apply it to the BC/LL tarmac meeting, consider the possibility that the same playbook is being used again
that the meeting was more than aid to help Clinton win the election. This is pure guess

www.deepblacklies.co.uk...

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: carewemust

Can you point to which appropriation in the $80B increase is earmarked for something that could be used for the wall?

I'm thinking The Planned Parenthood Population Control Wall sounds catchy!

Giving you guys a big one here.

Figure it out.