In The BOOM Matrix

Four fresh Q posts…..

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 467fd2 No.4707080 
Jan 11 2019 03:19:34 (EST)

Q Post 2668

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 9b77a9 No.4707199 
Jan 11 2019 03:27:18 (EST)
Awaiting VIP arrival.
What senior US official is arriving in China?

Q Post 2669

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 9b77a9 No.4707306 
Jan 11 2019 03:36:09 (EST)
At what point is it mathematically impossible?
The very next day.
Red Castle.
Green Castle.
Public access to intel?

Q Post 2670

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: 09f0b8 No.4708257 
Jan 11 2019 05:15:03 (EST)
If a woman is selected as the nominee does that eliminate the wrap up smear re: sexual assault?
What other tactics might be planned to block and/or force name removal?
Why is the Senate important?
Who controls the Senate?
Enjoy the show.

Q Post 2671

Interesting stuff.

BOOM matrix:


Love the way there is SO much action from this administration – so many parallel big moves.

Ideas on what’s happening in China?

Looks like the left has to move to a new Kavanaugh attack – but what will it be? Could be interesting.


“Another SCOTUS nominee? Hooray! Every time they use me, I become more REAL.”

85 thoughts on “In The BOOM Matrix

  1. Each boom represents a big thing. So, 4 booms. Huawei in poland noted today. World bank chinese resignation too. So just checking wheres difi? Also Penxe is speaking to border patrol now whike POTUS is where? 🤔🤔🤔
    Likely Female nominee is CATHOLIC. Prolife also but the antireligion smear by kamala harris and whats her face from hawaii leads me to think that may be their most obvious angle. Or, go after her family.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. This is actually a GREAT point.


      The Marxists have a very LONG and LARGE ploy (9/11 being a pivot point in it) where they play LYAHF (Let’s You And Him Fight) between Christians and Muslims. Generally speaking, the most unpatriotic and deceptive Muslims play along with them on this, because NONE of them buy into the US form of government or freedom, and are both working actively and together against it.

      ACB could easily address the PROPER relationship of religion to the Constitution, and while elevating her own cause – well within the scope of that traditional freedom of religion – also make the case why SOME people are not suited for public office, putting their religion ahead of the common good.

      In other words, she can argue for Republican nominees, and AGAINST future Democrat nominees, particularly LYING MUSLIMS and COMMUNISTS.

      It could be EPIC. And then we win. 😉

      Liked by 12 people

      1. “also make the case why SOME people are not suited for public office, putting their religion ahead of the common good.”


        Except doesn’t everyone who believes in God (or some false god) put their belief and allegiance to God ahead of everything else?

        For example, “for God and country”. God comes first.

        Or “God, family and country”. God still comes first, and ‘country’ doesn’t even beat ‘family’.

        This is why it MATTERS, critically, WHAT you believe in.

        If you believe in and follow God as revealed in the Scriptures, then by definition, the ‘common good’ will be served also.

        But if you believe in the false god of islam, and its creator, Mohamad, the ‘common good’ is not even a consideration, except to be subverted, exploited and plundered.

        It always comes back to the same thing.

        WHAT you believe makes a difference.

        All views are NOT equally valid.

        As Gregory Koukl points out in his article ‘The Myth of Tolerance’:

        excerpt —

        The Tolerance Trick

        Tolerance of this sort is a myth. In fact, it is a ruse, a swindle, and a hoax, what philosopher Francis Beckwith calls “the passive-aggressive tolerance trick.” By the relativists’ definition of tolerance, true tolerance is impossible. Let me give you a real-life example.

        In 2003 I spoke to a class of seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines, Iowa. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first expressed the current understanding of tolerance:

        All views are equally valid; no view is better than another.

        All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence:

        Jesus is the Messiah; Jews are wrong for rejecting Him.

        Immediately hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” one challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”

        “Like you’re doing right now?” I pointed out. “Actually, it doesn’t bother me at all. Why should it?”

        “But your view is intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement violated itself.

        I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views are equally valid?” They nodded.

        Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them.

        If all views are equally valid, then the view that Jews are wrong for rejecting Jesus is just as true as the view that Jews are right for rejecting Jesus. But this is hopelessly contradictory, gibberish. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.

        Escaping The Trap

        “Would you like to know how to get out of the trap?” I asked. They nodded. “Reject this modern distortion of tolerance and return to the classical view.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:

        Be egalitarian regarding persons.

        Be elitist regarding ideas.

        Egalitarian was a new word for them. Think “equal,” I said. Treat people as having equal standing in value or worth. This first principle, what might be called “civility,” is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word respect. Treat people with equal respect and deference.

        Elitist was a familiar word. An elitist was a snob, someone who thought he was better than others. “Right,” I said. “When you are elitist regarding ideas, you acknowledge that some ideas are better than others. And they are. Some are good; some are bad. Some are true; some are false. Some are brilliant; others are just plain foolish.”

        “Here’s the key,” I summed up. “True tolerance applies to how we treat people, not how we treat ideas.”

        We respect people who hold different beliefs from ours by treating them courteously, allowing them a place in the public discourse. Though we strongly disagree with them, tolerance requires us to be civil towards them in spite of our differences.

        We have a different obligation toward ideas, though. Reason and intellectual integrity require we treat some ideas as better than others. Any other approach is foolish, even dangerous, because ideas have consequences.

        These two categories are frequently conflated in the muddled thinking created by the myth of tolerance. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply contradictory. To argue some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.

        Liked by 11 people

          1. Meant to be a ‘take down’ of islam, or ‘tolerance’ for islam — which, by design, is intolerable and incompatible with anything other than islam.

            Sometimes I don’t realize how my posts could/might come across as confrontational toward the person I’m replying to (as opposed to the subject matter) until after I re-read it!

            Liked by 5 people

            1. Well, in this particular case, you took down the general “All views are equally valid” bullshit, that could have been (and was) exploited by EVERY wrongheaded view people have put forth since it was started.

              Liked by 5 people

              1. Ah, I see what you mean. Actually that was Gregory Koukl who obliterated the “All views are equally valid” BS, I was just quoting an excerpt.

                I first found the article at least 10 years ago, on, and I have quoted it many times since. It has also been republished several times since, with slight variations or revisions.

                I don’t think still has a valid like to the one I read many years ago. After a quick web search, there are many different links to Koukl’s ‘Myth of Tolerance’. I think the one at the following link is one place that ‘hosts’ an example of the original, the one I referred to:


                Liked by 5 people

            2. “My words are not me.” Particularly so when I cut corners! 😉

              Not all people get that. This is one of the reasons that keeping this place a free speech zone under control of a single free speech extremist (who is extremely aware of communist methods to shut it down) is my basic security model for protecting speech here. Complexity is risk. Simple! 😎

              Liked by 8 people

              1. Wolfie, you have made me think a lot about Free Speech.

                It is a theme that Tucker Carlson also hits frequently. Thursday night, or maybe Wednesday night, he did another segment about Free Speech. He said the wall was important, but the sudden rapid loss of Free Speech over the last couple of years was more important: that people were afraid to speak out and voice opinions about pretty much anything because they are often at risk for losing their jobs or being physically attacked.

                He stated the problem much better than I did, naturally, and he talked about Big Tech’s influence on all of this. I’m not sure if he’s right that it is so much worse in the last couple of years, or if it is that we have all been massively red pilled about it because of PDJT. I think we only THOUGHT we knew how bad it was, and each and every day we see it is so much worse.

                Silicon Valley has our necks in a noose, and they are paying off Congress with lobbying money and campaign donations so they do nothing to help us. It is a huge problem.

                So thanks for doing what you can to fight against it, every day.

                Liked by 2 people

    2. “Dims will scream for a Muslim nominee… 4.3.2…….”


      Let them scream.

      islam is literally a blood-soaked ideology of atrocities and crimes against humanity, invented by a mass-murdering rapist and pedophile.

      Everything about islam stands in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights.

      No doubt that is one reason the insane Left cynically uses islam as a tool.

      And islam is fine with that, because islam knows that when the time is right, islam will consume the Left.

      Regardless, as far as government is concerned, islam is literally synonymous with Sedition.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Islam mandates sharia law, which is essentially theocratic. Sharia is not an optional add-on. That’s because Islam isn’t contained solely in the Koran.

        Theocratic law ipso facto violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution. You can’t be required to worship in a certain way, or pay a penalty (jizyah) for not doing so.

        Therefore, unless someone is an Islamic-based heretic, rejecting large parts of Islam but (perhaps) following the rituals, he cannot be expected to follow the US Constitution without reservation.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. “Therefore, unless someone is an Islamic-based heretic, rejecting large parts of Islam but (perhaps) following the rituals, he cannot be expected to follow the US Constitution without reservation.”


          And since islam teaches, condones and promotes dishonesty, one can never trust of believe any muslim, even if he claimed to reject large parts of islam:


          Takiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.


          Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

          Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.


          Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

          Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

          “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

          “Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83 Later Medina)

          Another example:

          “Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca

          “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina


          Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.


          And if anyone rejected large parts of islam, it is tantamount to conceding that he is not a muslim at all, anyway. It’s a catch-22. You can’t be a muslim without accepting the inherent violence of islam, and if you reject the inherent violence of islam, you can’t be a muslim.

          And islam is so fundamentally corrupt that it doesn’t just codify LYING, it actually goes so far as to break lying down into at least four different kinds of lying, and approves each and every one, to deceive outsiders in the furtherance of islam.

          islam is a cancer on humanity; on life itself.

          It is a lie which teaches the propagation of lies, in service to a false god, invented by a mass-murderer.

          Liked by 5 people

          1. And if anyone rejected large parts of islam, it is tantamount to conceding that he is not a muslim at all, anyway. It’s a catch-22. You can’t be a muslim without accepting the inherent violence of islam, and if you reject the inherent violence of islam, you can’t be a muslim.

            That’s why I called my hypothetical almost-Muslim a heretic. He wouldn’t really be a Muslim, he’d just be some guy following some of the trappings.

            Liked by 6 people

    3. Here is a simple, logical proposition, by way of comparison, which plainly shows there can be no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim, because there can be no such thing as “moderate” islam.


      1) Jesus is the best and highest example of Christianity. Jesus taught no sin and committed no sin, and no one credibly claims otherwise based on any Scripture or historical fact.

      2) No one can reject Jesus or His teachings or His deeds and be a Christian.

      These points are obvious, self-evident and not credibly disputed by anyone.


      By the EXACT same token:

      3) Mohamad is the best and highest example of islam. Mohamad not only taught sin and committed sin — based on the books of islam and historical fact — but Mohamad, the founder of islam, was a *mass-murderer*.

      4) Even so, no one can reject Mohamad OR his violent teachings OR his violent deeds and still be a muslim.

      These points are also self-evident and not credibly disputed, by anyone.

      In order to be a muslim, you must embrace and accept the deeds and teachings and example of the mass-murderer who invented islam. An unrepentant mass-murderer. There is no way around it.


      Just as one cannot reject Christ or any of His teachings or any of His deeds and still be a Christian, HOW is it possible for any self-described muslim to *reject* Mohamad, or ANY of his teachings, or *any* of his deeds, and still be a “muslim” at all?


      You cannot be a muslim if you reject the violent teaching and example of Mohamad which is inherent to islam.

      And if you do reject the violent teaching and example of Mohamad inherent to islam, then you cannot be a muslim.

      And if anyone claims otherwise, I look forward to testing your argument.


      I have presented this logical proposition at least 80 times now over the last 12+ months (it’s a lot more, I stopped updating that number a long time ago), including to several self-identified Muslims, most often over on Breitbart with a large readership in the comments sections, and not one person has been able to refute it.

      NOT ONE.

      I keep hoping somebody will refute it, but nobody does. How am I supposed to refine the argument and make it even better, if nobody will even try?

      Liked by 6 people

    1. “This does look real. Hippa violation, bigly, but real.”


      Supposing it is real, is it really a HIPPA violation?

      Consider; RBG is a public official, one whose medical status has (potentially) a major impact on the Public.

      The anti-American/anti-human Left is, for purely political self serving reasons, making representations that RBG’s health is fine, never better — when the truth might be more accurately represented by the film ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’.

      The Public has a legitimate interest in RBG’s medical status (e.g., is she alive or dead? if she is alive, is she competent and capable, physically and mentally, to serve in the capacity of a Justice of the Supermeme Court?).

      The Public has a right to know whether RBG is dead or alive, and if alive, whether she is mentally competent and physically capable of acting in the capacity of a Supermeme Court justice.

      The treasonous Left is putting out lies, as always.

      If RBG approves of those lies — or knows about those lies and makes no effort to correct them — then isn’t exposing the truth about her medical condition valid?

      The public has a right to know the status of our highest kangaroo court.


      Liked by 6 people

      1. Oh, hippa laws aside, on the public figure aspect, particularly as a scj, i agree with the proof of life and mental fitness verification. People wouldnt feel the need to put themselves at risk professionally and criminally if we werent in the state our govt currently resides!

        Liked by 3 people

    2. I don’t know if it can be a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violation if there is no name on it. Whose privacy has been violated? Someone could have volunteered to show that portion of their record. Or someone could have leaked that portion against all the rules. But we don’t know whose record it is.


    1. Pompeo was in Jordan on Tuesday. It may have been a stopover on the way to China. The question is: What would Pompeo be doing in China? I won’t hazard a guess.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The UN just came out with critical statements about NK, and Kim is reportedly going to China, so it sounds like the globos have some angle on the Norks in this. Maybe they’re pushing for an agreement by going negative on NK’s current state.

        Liked by 5 people

              1. Wasn’t trying to correct you; I genuinely didn’t (and don’t) know. It IS an overland route albeit a cumbersome one, and someone sufficiently determined could probably arrange it.

                Trying to think like a paranoid, though, there’d be a lot of exposure on a route that long and I’d probably rather take a plane.


              2. KJU flew to Singapore. Someone lent him a plane. I remember jokes about It looking small and about to break down compared to AF1. US and “other people’s money” also paid for his accommodations, meals, transportation, and tours. 🤮🤮

                Liked by 4 people

  2. Last night when the Q drops hit, I was trying to think of which Twit accounts might be up at that hour. Today I see this list and think, ah! this is perfect! Saved for reference.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. PM has recommended and RT’d Bards of War many times, as well as those Bards lists in his tweet.
      Excellent idea to save list, imho of course 😉

      Liked by 5 people

    1. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin?

      “China and the U.S. held vice-ministerial level talks on Wednesday to discuss the ongoing trade dispute as they move closer to meeting in January.

      The two sides spoke by phone according to China’s Ministry of Commerce, and have held several rounds of talks in recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told Bloomberg on Tuesday in Washington. They plan to hold a formal, face-to-face meeting in January to negotiate a broader truce in their trade wars but are unlikely to meet in person before then, Mnuchin said.

      Liked by 5 people

        1. I gave the theory a good-faith test by going back and looking over Q’s use of “BOOM” in various contexts and formats, including “4 BOOMs” and “4 staggered BOOMs”.

          I don’t buy that this has anything to do with 4 SCOTUS picks.

          Q’s most consistent use of BOOM is to either signal upcoming events, or celebrate / confirm that they have been found / identified / proven / arrived. The numbers are not exact, either, since the “4” thing is somewhat now a meme of its own, and more or less means “many big news events”.

          Based on this, I expect some big things to happen soon. ONE will surely have to with RBG, ONE will surely have to do with THE WALL. ONE will likely be China / NK. Not sure what any others are, but probably something of that magnitude.

          Liked by 8 people

          1. Makes sense…
            The BOOMs stand alone… as you suggest.

            However, I’m intrigued by the SC Justice nominations… I see high possibility POTUS could, within 8 yrs place five (perhaps six if Thomas retires near end of POTUS’ 2nd term)… Outstanding! We could save the Constitution and our Republic !!!

            Liked by 6 people

            1. VSGPOTUS presents a real opportunity to remove / replace / counterbalance judicial “activists” (read “infiltrators”) from the courts, thus returning normal function to the system! People might even try to USE IT PROPERLY.

              Communist judges have no place in a non-communist system. RAUS!

              Liked by 8 people

              1. Wolf, Tucker Carlson had a short segment with a former SC law clerk, I think for Justice Thomas, on last night or the night before. She said in passing that while a lot of judicial nominees are clearing the Senate, there was a huge backlog of openings and at the rate the Dims are foot dragging, we aren’t even keeping up with the rate of retiring judges. So we’re bailing out the leaky ship but the water is flooding in. We need to go faster. I thought this was interesting, as well as frustrating. I hope Miss Lindsey can/will do something about this.

                Liked by 6 people

        2. This tweet from that thread, about DiFi the ChiSpy has me intrigued….

          Sure as hell looks like her, AND it was taken in a manner which looks like a surveillance photo (around cover, at a distance, target is just outside the cover).

          I blew it up and screenshot without any markings.

          ChiFi would be the top head next to the pillar.

          Liked by 7 people

  3. My guess on Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom is that it relates to this article summarizing Lisa Page’s congressional testimony. This is the first time her testimony has been reported upon. I’ve not gotten all the way through it, but it contains a number of revelations. If my theory is correct, there are likely four bombshells in here:

    One comment on the article for those wondering about the “gross negligence” discussion. Page’s presentation of DOJ’s position on this topic does cast any doubt on the DOJ legal position even though it would appear there are very good counterarguments (such as the plain meaning of the words congress chose to use in the statute). Page is not merely being obtuse here; often lawyers leaving government service are ethically obligated not to take public positions contrary to those espoused by the government during their tenure.

    Liked by 8 people

      1. phoenix! sorry so late to the party… I find it very interesting that Jeff Carlson from Epoch Times who got the leaked docs is the very same Jeff that got into it with SD just a day or 2 ago…Interesting Indeed!…

        Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s