ANALYSIS: What happens when a President that is owned by the Intelligence Community and China; who serves as a Chinese proxy; and who benefits from the Senate-approved agency heads by the Senate that he and the IC have in the back pocket, brand their political enemies as “terrorists”? Are the “domestic terrorists” and “domestic terrorism”…

October of 2001 was perhaps one of the most surreal and eerie times in American history and I’ll never forget the events leading up to it. At the time, I was teaching US History to a classroom full of juniors when on 11 Sep 01 sometime around mid-morning, our defensive coordinator, who taught across the hall from me, sprinted over, burst in and announced “they attacked the Pentagon.” Subsequently going to football practice for the next week or so in a city of a million people with the skies overhead eerily quiet and completely devoid of airplanes was something I’ll never forget. From then on everything; and I mean literally everything, would be different in America, but in a sea of swirling misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and propaganda, most Americans couldn’t decipher the present to foresee the future.

Defend Your Retirement Against Biden's Plans! Free 2024 Retirement Guide now available! Click here now

It wasn’t until years later and the aggregation of massive amounts of evidence and analysis that we began to understand the true size and scope of what appeared to be Intelligence Community operations that blamed a flimsy and impossible to believe narrative about hijackers, box cutters and jet fuel that defies all laws of physics to melt steel like butter.

Today we know that 9/11 was the seminal event to usher in Marxist communism through the ratcheting-up of oppressive government power, authority and control that exceeds firm Constitutional boundaries in violation of myriad rights and protections.

COVID-19 was the next major event in furtherance of this IC agenda and World War III is the scheduled closer; acknowledging a long list of other events and developments falling on the same timeline and slotting in between these three major ones.

Three considerations overlay this fact set giving us four points to reconcile: 1-President Joe Biden’s immigration policy that delivered 12+ million illegals, 2-how those illegals stand to function as a fifth column and 3-Biden’s DOJ polices that permit the targeting of Americans based on attributions of “domestic terrorism” and “domestic terrorist” as applied by a corrupt DOJ permitting Biden to hunt is political opposition like Marxists do.

Self Employed or Business Owner? Find Out How To Claim A MAJOR Tax Credit

The date 23 Oct 01 delivers a forth point for reconciliation and it’s the strand that binds together all of the other strands.

Our fourth strand is found in our source document the ‘MEMORANDUM FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT’ in re: “Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States” issued on 23 Oct 01.

Will The Biden Family Ever Be Held Accountable For Their Crimes?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The document is authored by John C. Yoo, who was born to anti-communist sympathizers in South Korea before immigrating to the US after the Korean War displaced the family.

Yoo threads through analytical subject Harvard University and was first appointed in the run-up to 9/11 in July 2001 by then President George W. Bush.

We pause to draw a distinction contained in Yoo’s memorandum and it’s the underlined portion reading Within the United States.”

We further pause to understand that the US military is restricted from domestic operations, or “within the United States of America,” in the domain of law and policy enforcement by means of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807.

In other words, Biden can’t use the military against his political enemies like he does the DOJ and FBI.


That momentarily but first, this.

Not without a sense of irony, the division between military and law enforcement was a hotbed political issue in 2020.

The topic?

The southern border, border security and identified loopholes:

Following vows from President Donald Trump last month to use active-duty troops to help enforce order in American cities, a Democratic senator wants lawmakers to close a loophole in federal law allowing such actions without congressional approval.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel, on Wednesday will offer an amendment to the pending defense authorization bill to make the Posse Comitatus Act apply to all military troops, regardless of their activation orders.

Military Times

This stands to limit unilateral Executive authority as Commander in Chief unless the President owns Congress and he does because the Intelligence Community owns them both and these are IC operations.

There’s a finer point to be had, though.

Even without Congress in the back pocket, Executive authority as CIC is still limited unless the Biden Administration ergo the Intelligence Community could create the circumstances that trigger extra-constitutional power and authority to deploy US troops against the American people “within the United States.”

Before you consider whether that conditional statement is meritorious, consider these contemporary circumstances the IC has already created: the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, JFK’s assassination, 9/11, “weapons of mass destruction,” Trump/”Russian collusion,” Mueller, Durham, two DJT impeachments, the Mar-a-Lago raid, COVID-19, the 2020 [s]election, the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation and the third world war that is about to start.

Very little about our reality is real.

When I say we live in a world created by enterprise fraud, take that literally.

Our four points for reconciliation stack up like this:

1-12+ million illegal aliens included identified terrorists from the Middle East and a column of fighting-aged Chinese men now reside in the US plausibly in a lie in wait posture.

2-The population of illegals contains a fifth column for forthcoming terror attacks that President Trump has already said will occur: “I believe we’re going to have a terrorist attack, 100%, 100%.”

3-In the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation, the Biden Administration entrapped and began hunting its political opposition predicated on constructed narratives of “domestic terrorism” and “domestic terrorist,” which are legal attributes assigned by DOJ/FBI that trigger extra-constitutional power and authority inherited by the same DOJ/FBI authorizing them to hunt. This ties back to DOJ/FBI constructive narratives of “white nationalism” etc., that further tie to Second Amendment considerations; all of which existed as legal pretext and precedent for the Capitol event [see the series The Hunt Is On].

4-And where all of this is borne out of 9/11.

Therefore the events and aftermath of 9/11 as a false flag construct are essential to understanding the entire U.S. timeline from 11 Sep 01 to the present.

When we pull on the 9/11 string, it yanks the present and so consider the contents of our source document that are contained in 5 points.

Knowing that the Intelligence Community has a long and successful history of building bridges between events that it constructs and a version of those events propagated as the “truth,” read the following and ask then yourself:

Is it possible for Biden and the IC to build a bridge from a large scale terrorist attack perhaps in reaction to another stolen election that has Trump in prison or worse; and that was mostly carried-out by a column of infidels smuggled into CONUS contained in side a Trojan Horse of 12+ million illegals, to justify widespread deployment of the US military “within the United States?

Ask if World War III might kick-off shortly thereafter because China would rather see us fight ourselves and then engage after the internal damage is done and the US is left weak, vulnerable and spread thin?

Ask if perhaps with intelligence from the Intelligence Community, that the military might come to identify “domestic terrorists” and cells about to engage in “domestic terrorism;” and where Biden’s military could then be turned on Biden’s political enemies he so branded?

If the IC can bridge to deploy the military “within the United States” what keeps it from bridging to targeting Americans identified as “domestic terrorists?”

What is required to be on a list as a “domestic terrorist?”

How easy is it to land on such a list?

Does ones speech alone land one on that list?

Ask the Capitol “insurrectionists” currently sitting in an Amerikan gulag how easy all of that is.

Ask if this might be the framework for all of that [emphasis added]:

You have asked for our Office’s views on the authority for the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States. Specifically, you have asked whether the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (1994), limits the ability of the President to engage the military domestically, and what constitutional standards apply to its use. We conclude that the President has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States. We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.

Our analysis falls into five parts. First, we review the President’s constitutional powers
to respond to terrorist threats
 in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. We consider the constitutional text, structure and history, and
interpretation by the executive branch, the courts and Congress. These authorities demonstrate
that the President has ample authority to deploy military force against terrorist threats within the
United States.

Second, we assess the legal consequences of S.J. Res. 23, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), which authorized the President to use force to respond to the incidents of September 11. Enactment of this legislation recognizes that the President may deploy military force domestically and to prevent and deter similar terrorist attacks.

Third, we examine the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, and show that it only
applies to the domestic use of the Armed Forces for law enforcement purposes,
 rather than for the performance of military functions. The Posse Comitatus Act itself contains an exception that allows the use of the military when constitutionally or statutorily authorized, which has occurred in the present circumstances.

Fourth, we turn to the question whether the Fourth Amendment would apply to the use of the military domestically against foreign terrorists. Although the situation is novel (at least in the nation’s recent experience), we think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment would not apply in these circumstances. Thus, for example, we do not think that a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probable cause or to obtain a warrant.

Fifth, we examine the consequences of assuming that the Fourth Amendment applies to domestic military operations against terrorists. Even if such were the case, we believe that the courts would not generally require a warrant, at least when the action was authorized by the President or other high executive branch official. The Government’s compelling interest in protecting the nation from attack and in prosecuting the war effort would outweigh the relevant privacy interests, making the search or seizure reasonable.

US DOJ / Office of Legal Counsel

What happens when a President that is owned by the Intelligence Community and China; who serves as a Chinese proxy; and who benefits from the Senate-approved agency heads by the Senate that he and the IC have in the back pocket, brand their political enemies as “terrorists”?

Are the “domestic terrorists” and “domestic terrorism” attributions that the DOJ/FBI currently leverages the same as the “similar terrorist attacks” that “the President may deploy military force domestically and to prevent and deter?”


That is the bridge being built.

Americans may wish to consider how the events of 9/11 have paved the way for the future chaos, fear and terror that will emerge out of a fifth column of infidels smuggled into CONUS inside a Trojan Horse of 12+ million illegal immigrants.

Americans may wish to consider how their Fourth Amendment protections won’t apply or matter.

Americans should consider how the Second Amendment is next.

You know what they say about those who fail to learn their history.

9/11 and its aftermath is the foundation for the present that is manifesting as a reckoning for the future.

Every generation has its moment.

This is ours.



Relative to COVID-19 as a construct of enterprise fraud, the predicate for the construct [its basis, reason, rationale and the evidence and data behind it] is critical according to Throckmorton [SCOTUS], as discussed below.

In short and generally so, none of COVID-19 was actually permissible and legal according to law.

So, fraud was committed to overcome the legal impediment and it came in the form of Emergency Use Authorizations, which we’ve examined intensively.

Here’s a succinct summary from another [emphasis added],

The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic1 put the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) power to the test. During the coronavirus pandemic, the FDA issued more EUAs than ever before,2 causing EUAs to become a frequent topic of public discussion and debate.3 The pandemic both highlighted the immense benefits of the EUA power and revealed some of its flaws. The EUA process provides the FDA the essential ability to respond quickly to a public health emergency,4 but aspects of the process can undermine public trust, confuse health authorities, stymie important data collection efforts, and potentially put individuals at unnecessary risk. These flaws are unlikely to dissipate when the COVID-19 pandemic ends because scientists predict that we will face more outbreaks like COVID-19 in the coming years.5

Kirstiana Perryman / University of Georgia School of Law

Mark my words.

They will have worked-out the flaws before the “next one.”

On the same 2001 timeline and underpinning the following with the US biowarfare analysis contained in Dangerously Changing Inconvenient Rules, consider what the DOJ Office of Justice Programs published from the Heritage Foundation [emphasis added]:

The number of criminal investigations in the United States related to the use of biological materials as weapons of mass destruction more than doubled between 1997 and 1998…The paper concludes that the United States lacks a coordinated and tested mechanism for responding to a biological or chemical attack, and this deficiency invites terrorists to develop the means to use these weapons. Although terrorists will face difficulties in carrying out a biological attack against America, it is well within their grasp to do so.

US DOJ/OPJ: Heritage Foundation

“A government-funded initiative called BioShield was established in 2004 to provide funds and spur private sector research and procurement of appropriate medical countermeasures to category A biological agents,” according to NIH.

BioShield factors into the analysis on COVID-19 being a construct of enterprise fraud meaning the construct; in this case the “pandemic,” rests on a fraudulent predication and where the Throckmorton doctrine [SCOTUS] holds that fraud vitiates everything.

Alongside BioShiled, DHS erected BioWatch in 2003: “Established in 2003, the DHS BioWatch Program provides early warning of a bioterrorist attack in more than 30 major metropolitan areas across the country. This early warning helps decision makers plan an effective, coordinated, and rapid response.”

Consider these illustrations relative to “more than 30 major metropolitan areas across the country”:

After making exceptions to US gain of function [biowarfare] moratoriums around 2014, Barack Obama permitted Anthony Fauci to then fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology with $3.7 million dollars transmitted through the conduit of Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance.

Now consider that Fauci worked at NAIAD overlaid by this:

At the same time, access to these agents has been significantly restricted to prevent diversion for illegal use. The CDC together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is tasked with limiting access to category A agents to research institutions that can house a biosafety level 4 facility…This has created an environment where researchers who wish to conduct research with these agents (commonly referred to as dual-use agents) to further our understanding of how best to treat infections or exposure to them are limited due to inaccessibility to these agents.36

NIH Publication

On 11 Jan 17, Anthony Fauci publicly stated at Georgetown University that the incoming Trump Administration would face a “surprise disease outbreak.”

Two days later on 13 Jan 17 during compulsory presidential transition meetings overseen by DHS functionary agency Office of Presidential Transition, the outgoing Obama Administration leveraged two Executive Orders issued by Obama to change presidential transition law standing since 1963 to plug-in a influenza pandemic exercise into the transition agenda with the incoming Trump Administration.

In attendance for those meetings was Trump’s incoming DIA Director, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and in the 24 hours before the meetings, the Obama Administration leaked the fraudulently constructed Flynn/Russia narrative deflecting away from the pandemic exercise insertion.

Nearly three years later on 27 Dec 19, the first reports of a surprise disease outbreak in China began to surface and in the months to follow, the U.S. and the world would be enveloped in a fraudulent “pandemic” that was used to steal an election and install a bona fide Chinese proxy into the Executive in Joe Biden.

Of course, Joe Biden prophesized the pandemic relative to his enormous increase in personal income two months and two days before the first reports of a viral outbreak in China.

Once into the Executive, Joe Biden immediately opened the US border and you know the rest of that story.

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.


Collapsing The System From Within: Understanding the Cloward-Piven Strategy [VIDEOS]

Win A Free Emergency Go Bag From RVM

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.