Do you consider the existence of the Quantum Financial System in your assessment?
Its been a while since I dug into the QFS, but I don't remember seeing anything of merit in there outside of some obvious things that have to be part of any solution.
HOW we arrive at a solution is just as important as the solution itself. That is really what these statements here are about. I suggest that we should not be making laws when removing laws and exposing fraud will do the same trick, in a far more permanent way. One path is business as usual, where in this particular case it also makes a clear and legal path to a different totalitarian regime. The other path teaches everyone why we would want to go in a certain direction, while also returning previous restrictions on government, and giving back the power and sovereignty to We The People.
When we started our government, all our federal laws fit on one piece of paper.
Now, almost 250 years later, we have so many laws, no one knows how many there are. It could be trillions. That was all done to con the American people out of their sovereign and inalienable rights.
It worked.
The path back is not more laws, but fewer. Even the Constitution and DoI were inherently flawed. They have loopholes put in, I think by Banker influences (Hamilton e.g.), that allowed for future fuckery.
We need a new country, or perhaps I should say, a new Government (which means a new Constitution). There is no other way.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Yes. It gets a lot of things wrong with regards to that. It tries to reform the banking system. The banking system is 100% complete fraud, through and through. We must eliminate fractional reserve banking. Completely.
I think we can do this quite easily by moving into a crypto barter system, where we have asset backed cryptos, which reduce the need for an intermediary to barter (money, aka silver, gold, tobacco, whatever). We do need a stable intermediary though, which could be a gold or silver backed crypto (or anything else that is stable, divisible, portable, physically exchangeable, storable indefinitely, etc.).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The original John Locke documents upon which our government was based said:
Life, Liberty and Property
What the fuck is "Pursuit of Happiness" anyways? I mean, its flowery language. it has NO PURPOSE in a legal document. Saying "Property" on the other hand is very specific. Only a sovereign can own property. By not including that word, it allowed for us to not be seen as sovereign, even though it was intended that we were proclaiming exactly that.
The constitution amendment 5 from the bill of rights says:
nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So here we go back to Life, liberty and property, but it adds in the most important addendum from which all future fuckery stems.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This addition says, exactly and precisely this: "The government is a higher sovereign than any person."
The government was supposed to be an equal sovereign. There is no such things as a "Hierarchy of Sovereigns". Either a group of sovereigns are equal, i.e. they are all kings and queens, or they are not all sovereign.
In this case the design was all people are kings and queens of their own life, liberty, and property (and all other rights given to sovereigns). All equal, and all equal to the government. Not subordinate. A system where one sovereign is above the others is the same exact thing as saying there is only one sovereign, and everyone else is a vassel.
There can be no eminent domain laws in a group of equals. One sovereign can not legally go to another and demand their property. That is an act of war.
There's a great deal of information out there about NESARA, and I suspect there are a number of versions...kinda like the bible.
So who has the actual and authentic version? Do you consider the existence of the Quantum Financial System in your assessment?
If this isn't it, then I doubt there is one.
Its been a while since I dug into the QFS, but I don't remember seeing anything of merit in there outside of some obvious things that have to be part of any solution.
HOW we arrive at a solution is just as important as the solution itself. That is really what these statements here are about. I suggest that we should not be making laws when removing laws and exposing fraud will do the same trick, in a far more permanent way. One path is business as usual, where in this particular case it also makes a clear and legal path to a different totalitarian regime. The other path teaches everyone why we would want to go in a certain direction, while also returning previous restrictions on government, and giving back the power and sovereignty to We The People.
When we started our government, all our federal laws fit on one piece of paper.
Now, almost 250 years later, we have so many laws, no one knows how many there are. It could be trillions. That was all done to con the American people out of their sovereign and inalienable rights.
It worked.
The path back is not more laws, but fewer. Even the Constitution and DoI were inherently flawed. They have loopholes put in, I think by Banker influences (Hamilton e.g.), that allowed for future fuckery.
We need a new country, or perhaps I should say, a new Government (which means a new Constitution). There is no other way.
You are here. ^
Well it starts out to say that it amends the Federal Reserve Act, which immediately smacks of putting a different face on the same old thing.
Yes. It gets a lot of things wrong with regards to that. It tries to reform the banking system. The banking system is 100% complete fraud, through and through. We must eliminate fractional reserve banking. Completely.
I think we can do this quite easily by moving into a crypto barter system, where we have asset backed cryptos, which reduce the need for an intermediary to barter (money, aka silver, gold, tobacco, whatever). We do need a stable intermediary though, which could be a gold or silver backed crypto (or anything else that is stable, divisible, portable, physically exchangeable, storable indefinitely, etc.).
What is wrong with our constitution?
The DoI says this:
The original John Locke documents upon which our government was based said:
What the fuck is "Pursuit of Happiness" anyways? I mean, its flowery language. it has NO PURPOSE in a legal document. Saying "Property" on the other hand is very specific. Only a sovereign can own property. By not including that word, it allowed for us to not be seen as sovereign, even though it was intended that we were proclaiming exactly that.
The constitution amendment 5 from the bill of rights says:
So here we go back to Life, liberty and property, but it adds in the most important addendum from which all future fuckery stems.
This addition says, exactly and precisely this: "The government is a higher sovereign than any person."
The government was supposed to be an equal sovereign. There is no such things as a "Hierarchy of Sovereigns". Either a group of sovereigns are equal, i.e. they are all kings and queens, or they are not all sovereign.
In this case the design was all people are kings and queens of their own life, liberty, and property (and all other rights given to sovereigns). All equal, and all equal to the government. Not subordinate. A system where one sovereign is above the others is the same exact thing as saying there is only one sovereign, and everyone else is a vassel.
There can be no eminent domain laws in a group of equals. One sovereign can not legally go to another and demand their property. That is an act of war.
I see what you are saying.
The Constitution is a document for the Federal Government to obey to prevent it from infringing on our GOD GIVEN rights.
It is not to GIVE us our rights. Our rights are un-a-lien-able meaning they cannot have a lien placed against them to prevent our having them.
What government did the founding fathers have before they dreamed up the Federal Government?
I can tell you, but I want to see if you know.