technically, what is meant here is not just king, but absolutist hereditary kingship.
A head of state, whether President or King is not very important. In Europe, there was a time when kingship was a matter of consent of the tribe, a more or less chosen position. The same with dukes: head of armies.
The issue becomes what dictates laws?
e.g. The Netherlands started out in 1815 as an absolutist monarchy. That did not sit well, so, a parliamentary system was devised. However, the King still had tremendous influence on domestic issues since he governed international affairs. Via the backdoor, all kinds of rules were imposed that were detrimental to the parliamentary system.
Currently, members of the States General (Staten-Generaal, comparable the House and Senate) can only be seated when swearing allegiance to the King and the Constitution. However, the Constitution contains an important loophole: International treaties serve as part of the Constitution, and Judges are prohibited from considering laws conformation to the Constitution.
Now it becomes important, how these international treaties are being brought about and WHO is influencing that process. Bilderberg? When you mention this lot, you also mention WEF, UN, IMF, EU, ECB, etc.
The King is member of Bilderberg, totally controlled.
If self government is to be promoted, it requires a receding and decentralisation of power, not the other way around.
In 1581, the Dutch declared their independence from the King of Spain (and Holy Roman Empire) However, their first instinct then was to seek a new protector in the form of a king. They offered the crown to several nobles. This failed. So, by happenstance, they established a republic. However, it became a hybrid, where a noble house of Orange was not a king but a stadhouder, or vicar. Basically, the commander in chief if and when that sat well with the States - General.
Needless to say, faction began to emerge. One faction favored the Republic in pure form, others, the Oranges, favored the establishment of a heridatary kingdom. That is why, it took 80 years to stabilize the revolution. Meanwhile, the scheming Orangist faction killed some very patriotic people, like the De Witt brothers, Van Oldenbarneveldt, and sent our greatest Admiral to his death.
This opened up the country to an attack from three sides in 1672 and broke the camels back.
That is why allegiance to the Constitution is a peculiar thing, as it is allegiance to an idea and a way of life and self government and independence, instead of allegiance to a person, which subordinates every one else to that person holding that allegiance.
Given Xuo Xiden's EO 's, on the back of decades of Federal centralization (power grab) at the expense of States Rights and Reserved Rights by the People (amendment X), it is easy to see this aims at establishing a system where allegiance to the Constitution amounts to allegiance to a person, or group of persons.
There is a thin red line, that should not be crossed, lest one loses their independence, their self governance, their freedom.
Bringing in millions of people who have not even the slightest impulse to free them selves, or to understand what it means to self govern, added to a dumbed down populace, decadent and dependent (using a microven to dry the cat) is a typical Chinese strategy to change the fabric of a society. (See Manchuria), if you can't get them out, breed them out.
Neither a King nor president will safe decay, but a people standing up and acting on their own behalf.
technically, what is meant here is not just king, but absolutist hereditary kingship.
A head of state, whether President or King is not very important. In Europe, there was a time when kingship was a matter of consent of the tribe, a more or less chosen position. The same with dukes: head of armies.
The issue becomes what dictates laws?
e.g. The Netherlands started out in 1815 as an absolutist monarchy. That did not sit well, so, a parliamentary system was devised. However, the King still had tremendous influence on domestic issues since he governed international affairs. Via the backdoor, all kinds of rules were imposed that were detrimental to the parliamentary system.
Currently, members of the States General (Staten-Generaal, comparable the House and Senate) can only be seated when swearing allegiance to the King and the Constitution. However, the Constitution contains an important loophole: International treaties serve as part of the Constitution, and Judges are prohibited from considering laws conformation to the Constitution.
Now it becomes important, how these international treaties are being brought about and WHO is influencing that process. Bilderberg? When you mention this lot, you also mention WEF, UN, IMF, EU, ECB, etc.
The King is member of Bilderberg, totally controlled.
If self government is to be promoted, it requires a receding and decentralisation of power, not the other way around.
In 1581, the Dutch declared their independence from the King of Spain (and Holy Roman Empire) However, their first instinct then was to seek a new protector in the form of a king. They offered the crown to several nobles. This failed. So, by happenstance, they established a republic. However, it became a hybrid, where a noble house of Orange was not a king but a stadhouder, or vicar. Basically, the commander in chief if and when that sat well with the States - General.
Needless to say, faction began to emerge. One faction favored the Republic in pure form, others, the Oranges, favored the establishment of a heridatary kingdom. That is why, it took 80 years to stabilize the revolution. Meanwhile, the scheming Orangist faction killed some very patriotic people, like the De Witt brothers, Van Oldenbarneveldt, and sent our greatest Admiral to his death.
This opened up the country to an attack from three sides in 1672 and broke the camels back.
That is why allegiance to the Constitution is a peculiar thing, as it is allegiance to an idea and a way of life and self government and independence, instead of allegiance to a person, which subordinates every one else to that person holding that allegiance.
Given Xuo Xiden's EO 's, on the back of decades of Federal centralization (power grab) at the expense of States Rights and Reserved Rights by the People (amendment X), it is easy to see this aims at establishing a system where allegiance to the Constitution amounts to allegiance to a person, or group of persons.
There is a thin red line, that should not be crossed, lest one loses their independence, their self governance, their freedom.
Bringing in millions of people who have not even the slightest impulse to free them selves, or to understand what it means to self govern, added to a dumbed down populace, decadent and dependent (using a microven to dry the cat) is a typical Chinese strategy to change the fabric of a society. (See Manchuria), if you can't get them out, breed them out.
Neither a King nor president will safe decay, but a people standing up and acting on their own behalf.
It seems, that process is well underway.