Q For Noobs: Chapter 5

Drop 22

Hello and welcome to Chapter 5 of Q For Noobs! This chapter will be a bit different in that I am only going to cover one drop.

And you may be wondering why that is.

Well, the reason is because there is a LOT more to this particular drop than meets the eye. It is, arguably, one of the most consequential drops Q ever made.

In this drop, which comparatively speaking is relatively short, Q told us all the mechanisms which would be used to bring down the deep state.

In short: This drop is a lot more jam-packed with information than it may initially appear, and to do this drop justice, it deserves a full and complete breakdown.

So what do ya say we go ahead and dive in to one of the most important drops of all time!

(Watch tonight’s episode here: Q For Noobs Ep 5 on Rumble

Drop 22 - 11/1/2017

This drop begins with a very direct question.

“Who controls the NG?”. NG, of course, being the National Guard.

So, who controls the NG?

The simple answer is that State governors primarily control the National Guard for most day-to-day and state missions. However, as we saw last year in Los Angeles, the President can absolutely federalize the National Guard and call them into service himself.

Let’s breakdown the state control over the Guard because it will emphasize and highlight the abject failure of many states and their governors to protect their citizens during the “Summer Of Love” in 2020.

• Each state’s National Guard (Army National Guard and Air National Guard) is under the command of that state’s governor (or the equivalent in territories).

• Governors use the Guard for state emergencies, natural disasters, civil unrest, search-and-rescue, and other domestic missions.

• In this status the Guard operates under Title 32 of the U.S. Code (federally funded and trained, but state-controlled) or purely state active duty.

2nd section. What sticks out?

Civil Unrest.

It doesn’t take a lot to go back in time and realize that nearly every state which experienced riots absolutely dropped the ball in activating the National Guard to quell riots and unrest.

We all witnessed the MSM cover for them, infamously stating that “these are mostly peaceful protests” despite buildings burning down behind them.

Here is a reminder in case you forgot:

And when various governors did activate the NG, they completely neutered them by requiring them to stand guard sans any visible weapons.

Meanwhile, in just what we’ve covered so far, it is plainly obvious that governors have all right and authority to activate the National Guard to quell civil unrest.

So why did so many fail to do so?

That answer should be obvious, but here goes: Because they were all complicit in the destruction of these cities and towns. It is what they wanted.

What does it look like when federal control is enacted over the National Guard?

• The President can call the National Guard into federal service under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Once federalized, units fall under the chain of command of the Department of Defense (Secretary of Defense → military departments → combatant commanders) and are no longer under the governor’s operational control.

• Federalization can occur for national emergencies, overseas deployments, or certain domestic situations authorized by law.

• The President also has authority under the Insurrection Act and related statutes in specific circumstances.

Again, second section. “Or certain domestic situations authorized by law”. We are gonna get into that in a minute.

In the third section, we see the Insurrection Act mentioned.

This will come into play in a bit as well.

In short: governors run the NG for state purposes; the President can take over the NG for federal purposes.

Next Q asks us “Why was the NG recently activated in select cities within the US?”.

So, were there any NG units activated in select cities during the fall of 2017?

Turns out there were.

National Guard units were indeed activated in multiple locations across the U.S. in fall 2017, though primarily for natural disaster response rather than a coordinated non-disaster deployment.

However, there were situations where the NG was called up for civil unrest.

In St. Louis (September 2017), following the acquittal of former officer Jason Stockley, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens put the Missouri National Guard on standby/alert and took steps to activate it to protect critical infrastructure and free up local law enforcement for protests. Units were prepared and some activity occurred, but they were largely standing by; they were released after roughly a week and a half as the situation stabilized. Protests involved some property damage, arrests, and police responses (including tear gas), but the Guard role was preparatory/support rather than large-scale street presence comparable to later events.

And here is the big one to take notice of:

• Charlottesville, Virginia (August 12, 2017—late summer, saw Virginia National Guard activation (military police and support) after a state emergency declaration amid violence at the “Unite the Right” rally. They assisted law enforcement in restoring order

The “very fine people” hoax, which has since been roundly debunked, took place in Charlottesville at the above mentioned event.

Just for posterity - Here is what President Trump ACTUALLY said. You’ll notice he actually condemns white supremacy, yet the MSM made sure to ignore that part.

Even Snopes had to admit that the “Very Fine People” schtick was a complete ruse.

What’s interesting is in this same time period (fall of 2017) overseas or cyber mobilizations also happened at this time, but we were told they were unrelated to domestic city deployments.

Not sure I buy that.

Up next is a biggie.

“Can the NG work in coordination w/ the Marines?”.

The short answer is yes. But let’s dive in.

Not only can they work together, they do so often and it isn’t random or a one-off thing.

National Guard units regularly train alongside Marines. One documented example is Hawaii Army National Guard firefighters conducting joint aircraft rescue, firefighting, technical, and rope rescue training with Marine Corps personnel (and Air Force Reservists) at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay.

Domestic operations (Defense Support of Civil Authorities / DSCA): In disaster response, civil support, or other domestic missions, Title 10 federal forces (which include active-duty Marines and Marine Corps Reserve personnel on federal orders) can operate alongside National Guard forces.

Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures explicitly address integrating Title 10 forces with National Guard elements operating under Title 32 or state active duty. Dual-status commanders are commonly used so one officer can command both federal (Title 10) and National Guard forces for unity of effort.

But what about in the instance of the NG being federalized?

When the National Guard is federalized, its units become part of the federal force structure and fully integrate into joint operations, task forces, and combatant command structures alongside the Marine Corps and other services.

U.S. military doctrine supports multi-service and joint operations. The National Guard participates in joint exercises, deployments, and contingency operations that can include Marine Corps forces.

Command relationships are established through unified combatant commands, joint task forces, or other mechanisms as needed.

What about the legal and practical framework of said coordination?

There is no prohibition on coordination. Period.

The services operate under different authorities in some domestic scenarios (e.g., Posse Comitatus restrictions apply more strictly to Title 10 forces than to National Guard in state status), but these are managed through established processes, dual-status command arrangements, and formal requests for assistance.

Overseas or in purely federal missions, integration is standard joint-force practice.

In closing, coordination is both authorized and common—through training, domestic support missions, and joint operational structures.

The next question is another very important facet to all of this.

“Do conditions need to be satisfied to authorize?”

Yes. They do. But what conditions?

The President can federalize (call into federal service under Title 10) the National Guard primarily under two related sets of statutory authorities derived from Congress’s constitutional power over the militia (Article I, Section 8).

The President may call members and units of the National Guard of any State into federal service whenever:

• The United States (or any of its Commonwealths or possessions) is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

• There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

• The President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

The President may call up such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders “shall be issued through the governors of the States” (or the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard).

This is a procedural requirement for routing the order; it does not give governors a veto or require their consent.

There are more avenues in which the President can federalize the NG. One of which is the Insurrection Act.

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act is a Federal Law that allows the President to utilize the Military, as well as the National Guard within the United States to suppress a perceived insurrection or rebellion.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S Military is extremely reduced in its capacity to police its own citizens. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception from the Posse Comitatus Act. Meaning - The U.S Military can be used to police its own populace.

Now, many pundits (and the uneducated) will make the argument that the President requires state approval to declare the Insurrection Act. This is simply not true.

So, in order for the President to enact The Insurrection Act, he has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the country is, in effect, under attack from within. Those are the conditions that Q is referring to.

With double meanings being a thing, I will also point out that The Insurrection Act also makes the pathway towards federalizing the NG a lot smoother. But how?

The Insurrection Act certainly provides additional (and in some respects broader) authority to federalize the National Guard (and to use the regular Armed Forces) in these situations:

• § 251: At the request of a state’s legislature (or the governor if the legislature cannot be convened) to suppress an insurrection against the state’s government.

• § 252: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. No state request or consent is required.

• § 253: To suppress insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy that deprives people of constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect those rights or the laws. No state request is required.

A presidential proclamation ordering dispersal of the unlawful assembly is generally required before using force under the Act.

So far we have learned that the President can take control of the National Guard, and that the Marines can work alongside the Nation Guard. And then we learned that The Insurrection Act paves the way for both of those things to happen without congress (or anyone else) being able to stop it.

Example: in L.A in 2025, various Federal Judges attempted to stop President Trump from sending in the National Guard and the Marines. They all failed. I believe that scenario last year was showing the public how that mechanism will work when the time comes.

Here are some key points to takeaway before we move on.

• No governor consent is required in most cases under these authorities (except the state-request scenario in § 251). Historical practice and court precedent (including Martin v. Mott, 1827) have treated the President’s determination that the statutory conditions exist with significant deference, though modern litigation has sometimes tested the factual predicates.

• Once federalized under Title 10, National Guard members are under federal command and control (the President as Commander in Chief) and are subject to the same rules as active-duty forces. The Posse Comitatus Act normally restricts their use for domestic law enforcement, but the Insurrection Act is a statutory exception that allows broader law-enforcement roles.

• Separate authorities exist for other mobilizations (e.g., full/partial mobilization for war or national emergency under other Title 10 provisions, or Title 32 status where troops remain under state control but may receive federal funding). Pure federalization for domestic purposes most commonly relies on § 12406 or the Insurrection Act.

These conditions are statutory triggers set by Congress; the President exercises the power once the relevant conditions are met (as determined under the applicable statute).

To repeat: Once conditions are met, the decision rests solely in the hands of the President.

Now we move on to an even juicier tidbit in this drop.

Q then asks us “What former President used the military to save the republic and what occurred exactly?”.

You could go a few ways here. Conventional wisdom would have you begin down a rabbit hole of which Presidents used The Insurrection Act, and there are many.

Andrew Jackson invoked the Insurrection Act in 1831 to put down a slave rebellion by Nat Turner, and again in 1834 to settle a labor dispute by workers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.

Ulysses S. Grant invoked it several times. Most notably for the suppression of the KKK in 1871, and again used it to quell unrest after the contested gubernatorial election in Louisiana in 1872.

Rutherford B. Hayes invoked it in 1878 in the famous “Lincoln County War” - which of course involved the infamous Billy The Kid.

Tensions brought forth by the Pullman Strike of 1894 forced Grover Cleveland to invoke the act, and again in 1914 during what became known as the “Great Coalfield War” when President Wilson invoked the Insurrection Act to suppress that uprising.

In 1943, FDR used it to suppress the Detroit Race Riots.

Eisenhower used it in order to protect the “Little Rock 9”, and even JFK used it multiple times - mostly to quell racial tensions and unrest and to force desegregation in Alabama schools in 1963.

Lyndon B. Johnson enacted it on 4 separate occasions. In 1967 he used it to quell racial tensions in Detroit. He again used it 3 separate times in 1968 - In DC, Chicago and Baltimore to suppress riots and outrage after MLK Jr’s assassination.

The most recent instance it was utilized was in 1992 when George H.W Bush declared it to suppress the L.A riots.

George W. Bush contemplated invoking it in New Orleans after Katrina, but ultimately decided not to.

(Do you know what all of those have in common? In not one instance, was the state asked for permission. Because the belief that this must be done is a fallacy. Plain and simple, if the Commander In Chief deems that there is an Insurrection or Rebellion taking place, they can then declare the Insurrection Act and send in the military.)

But out of all the Presidents, there is one that used the same clause in the Constitution to activate the military on our own soil, and it was before The Insurrection Act became law. It was actually what made The Insurrection Act become law.

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.

That is who Q is pointing to.

But what happened? What is it that Q is pointing towards?

During the Civil War (1861–1865), he directed the Union Army and related forces to suppress the secession of Southern states and preserve the United States as a single nation.

After seven Southern states seceded following his election and formed the Confederate States of America (later joined by four more), Lincoln treated secession as an illegal rebellion rather than a lawful right of states.

Key Details Include:

• Calling for 75,000 militia volunteers after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter (April 1861) under the Militia Act of 1795 and related authorities to suppress combinations too powerful for ordinary judicial processes.

• Expanding the regular Army and Navy, blockading Southern ports, and spending unappropriated funds for military purposes.

• Suspending the writ of habeas corpus in certain areas (beginning with Maryland to secure Washington, D.C., and key rail lines), leading to arrests of suspected secessionists, including some state legislators.

• Deploying troops for domestic control, such as sending regiments (fresh from Gettysburg) to suppress the New York City draft riots in July 1863.

• Issuing the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) as a war measure, authorizing military commissions, and ultimately directing the full prosecution of the war until Confederate surrender in 1865.

Lincoln justified these steps under his constitutional duties as Commander in Chief, the “take Care” clause, and his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He argued that extraordinary measures were required to save the government and the Union itself. The war ended with the defeat of the Confederacy, the abolition of slavery (via the 13th Amendment), and the preservation of the United States as one nation.

I want to focus on the second point made, and that is the expansion of the Army and Navy as well as the blockade of certain ports. We have seen President Trump do the same thing. He has expanded the military and restored it, and he has secured our borders. He has also captured other very important military choke points in our hemisphere.

There was an even earlier precedent set to put down a rebellion by none other than George Washington.

George Washington provided the first major example of a president using military force (primarily state militias called into federal service) to uphold federal authority and the new republic’s stability.

Western Pennsylvania farmers violently resisted a federal excise tax on distilled spirits (part of Alexander Hamilton’s financial program). Resistance escalated to attacks on tax officials, including the burning of the regional tax inspector’s home. After a federal judge certified that the laws could not be enforced by ordinary means, Washington:

• Issued a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse.

• Called up approximately 12,950 militia from several states under the Militia Act of 1792.

• Personally led the force partway west (the only sitting president to do so in the field) before turning command over to others.

The show of force caused the rebellion to collapse with little fighting. A small number of participants were arrested and tried; two were convicted of treason and later pardoned by Washington. This established that the federal government could and would enforce its laws against internal resistance, strengthening the authority of the new Constitution.

Both cases involved invoking early forms of the authorities that later became the Insurrection Act and related statutes for calling forth the militia (today’s National Guard) to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, or repel threats to the government’s authority. Lincoln’s actions occurred on a far larger scale and are the ones most directly framed as “saving the republic.”

Throughout the years we have seen President Trump, as well as various members of his inner circle (Scavino, Habba, Speaker Johnson) give multiple nods and acknowledgements to President Lincoln.

President Trump himself has spoken highly of not just Lincoln, but Jackson, Roosevelt, McKinley and JFK.

All of them enacted The Insurrection Act at some point.

Q did in fact mention The Insurrection Act:

IMHO - The Insurrection Act has not been invoked yet. I believe we have seen overtures of it. Things to teach us about it and prepare us for when it really happens, and I do believe it will happen.

Otherwise, why would Q even mention it, or put us on the path of researching its importance and how it has been utilized throughout history, specifically by Abraham Lincoln?

To a finer point, I still believe we have to see a public show of force by the Military at some point to send a message that trying to take America down by infiltrating it will work no better than trying to put boots on the ground here.

And when that happens, I believe The Insurrection Act will be the mechanism used to do so.

To finish this drop off, Q says “Biggest drop to ever be provided on Pol. Study and prepare. The masses tend to panic in such situations. No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift.”

Q starts by telling us this is the biggest drop to ever be provided on Pol. Is he talking about the overall Q operation in it’s totality? Or is he talking about THIS specific drop? I tend to believe the former. However, if it is the latter, then that means that at some point the rubber will meet the road, things will get ugly, and the military will get involved.

And that thought carries weight, because to end the drop, Q gives us a message imploring us to study what we are learning, and be prepared to comfort people and guide them as things get crazy. Which to be fair, they have been crazy for years now and Anons have remained the constant lighthouse in the darkness for normies and the blue pilled.

Q reassures us by saying there will be no war, and no civil unrest. And that when it starts, it will be handled quickly “clean and swift”.

That will wrap up this chapter of Q For Noobs! I hope y’all enjoyed and are able to take something away from it.

Thank you all so much for all of the support and love!

Take note: There will not be a new chapter or episode next week as Barb and myself will be out of town for her father’s funeral service. I look forward to getting back at it on August 31st!

Until then, you guys stay safe and be blessed. Remember that God has already won, and patriots are in control. Keep fighting. Don’t sit idle. And don’t EVER give up. No matter what. God bless, my frens!