Ok, hear me out ...... let's start off with 2 datums .... 1. We are watching a movie and 2. Trump is currently the "real" president acting as such.
So, if we are watching a movie and all the important actors are playing their parts well under control, why would any plan depend upon the variability of an election at this point? Why depend upon a single individual staying healthy etc. (i.e. Trump). It would seem if we are watching a movie then all important variables can be accounted for a coped with if it falls "wrong", an actor/controlled asset replaced etc. Also if the next election is vital, wouldn't Q be communicating to us to assist as such? Q has gone dark because we did most all thats needed of us until the normies awaken.
Secondly if Trump is actually doing his 2nd term, he does not get 3 per the rules (assuming we playing fair in that case).
If we are watching a movie, then we can assume most all individuals with power to affect real outcomes are under control (maybe the blackmail material is in white hats hands and they do what they are told like how RICO is run). It seems like Trumps first term was to put various last steps in place Space force, various EO's etc. and now he may only have a small part to play in the final stretch. Q did say they have plans "beyond Trump".
If we are "watching a movie", all vital variables must be under control at a probably impressive scale.
We are talking about an understanding of what a government really is, what a corporation is, and what law is. A population wide misunderstanding of these things is why we are where we are. Being clear about them in conversation, to everyone's satisfaction, is essential to a victory condition for We The People. It is also essential to even get to the point where we can reasonably talk about "the big picture."
In this case, I believe your analogy does not apply. You did not give me feedback to suggest you understood, on the contrary, you gave me feedback that suggests you didn't. I belabored the issue (from your perspective) in an attempt to get on the same page, nothing more.
If you feel I've gotten "lost in the weeds," so be it. You are welcome to that opinion, but understanding the real fuckery is the most important thing we can engage in. I suggest that is exactly what Q is all about. I will continue to try to help people understand what that is until everyone understands, or I'm dead, whichever comes first.
I already gave you that feed back here
Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on, and making long winded points where it is not necessary.
The point we disagree on is simple. You believe that there was no reason to change the "corporate" structure of US since it has been as such since inception, while I sidagree.
You make your point with things such as "only a few people signed the declaration of independance", "there has been fuckery all around", "US was created by the bad people, there was no mitigation of that (I am paraphrasing this)"
I am simply pointing out that NONE of those arguments proves that there was no change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change.
And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.
Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you. Assuming that my timeline is the same as your timeline in a situation where I don't press "reload" every five seconds (or even every minute) may be causing some consternation.
Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.
Fair points. Let me address it.
First "proof" is probably not the right word, since that is a statement that the evidence has reached a certain threshold for you (preponderance of the evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt, e.g.). It would be better to say that I have not addressed those points with evidence. That is not entirely true, but I have not addressed those points directly, since I didn't really understand that that was the main point of contention.
There was no need for such a change because the Constitution (the actual law we got), in contradiction to the DoI (the supposed "spirit" of the Govt), did not address the Sovereignty of the individual, and by not addressing it, subverted it. This is a point that you are not appreciating. THERE IS SO MUCH FUCKERY contained in that omission. Because, by the Law of the Constitution, the individual is a subject of the Sovereign government, any future fuckery of subversion is possible. All it takes is a law. A constitutional amendment is not required. Because the government is, within its own definition, Sovereign to a group of vassals, it can do anything it wants, whenever it wants.
What laws have subverted our rights? Jesus, where to begin. How about I start with infringements on the 1st amendment.
Let's look at Schenck v. United States, 1919. From wikipedia:
What does this do? First, the "draft," which Mr. Schenck was speaking against is an infringement on the rights of the individual. "You must kill people and die for us because we said so." The Constitution (specifically the fifth amendment) gives the Sovereign Government the right to claim ownership of the lives of anyone under the guise of "national security." What is National Security? Whatever the Sovereign Government (or rather the Aristocracy that runs the Sovereign Government) says it is. More fuckery has been done under the guise of "national security" than you would believe until you dig into the evidence. Indeed, there has be NO WAR, in the history of the United States that was not designed and run, both sides, by the same bankers, specifically to further subjugate the people, including the Revolutionary war.
Oliver Wendell Holmes btw was an agent of Rockefeller/Rothschild, and a huge zionist, the goals of which were the real reason for WWI.
Second this leads to further justifications for "exceptions for the first amendment," all of which are fuckery, while at the same time further justifying all people as subjects to the Sovereign Government (again, created as such in 1787).
Third, since it was based on the Sedition Act, it makes clear that dissenters will not be tolerated. The US Govt. was ostensibly created by dissenters, but words of dissention if they cross the line into "incitement" are not allowed, nor if someone in charge felt they crossed the line, such as the seditious words of Mr. Scheck, "don't go die for the corrupt corporation controlled government." But this was always the case. The government tolerated no dissention if it went to the point of actual rebellion. I mean, "obviously," but also, "totally against the DoI."
There is more, there is so much more, but to be succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.
You can't escape. You are a citizen. You are a subject to the Sovereign government. You have no choice but to do what we say.
If you believe there is something fundamentally wrong with the government that you have gone so far as to do something about it, you can't participate in the government. NO INSURRECTION ALLOWED. Again, "obviously," yet, "not the DoI," and certainly not an appreciation of the Sovereign Individual, rather, it is a subversion of it. We aren't talking about violence here. We aren't talking about killing innocent people. We are talking about "participation in rebellion," which is subject to the definition of the people who are currently in charge of the government, and that is exactly how it has always been applied, including in the above case of "not actually protected speech."
Then there's this one. This, along with the first quote (we are all "citizens," thus responsible for the debt) ensured that ALL INDIVIDUALS will be forever indebted to the banks, which is to say, we have an indenture in perpetuity (AKA slavery). This was coming off the end of the Civil War, when our debt increased to so much that it became impossible to pay it off without taxing the people (stealing their property) to the point that the entire nation would have been impoverished. By the end of the Civil War, the banks (specifically Rothschild) had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."
There is much in your comment that merits thoughtful response but let me start off addressing this first point:
The sovereignty of the individual is not derived from Constitution. It is derived from Common Law which is derived from the word of God. Hence, the starting point in the Declaration of Independance, where this point is established beyond any doubt:
Then it proceeds further to establish the basis of a Government:
Government is a necessary evil, but the basis of the Government is the "consent of the governed", who themselves have derived their power from the Nature's Law and God.
This is establishing the flow of power:
God -> Nature's Law -> Individuals -> Government (through consent of the governed)
The constitution then comes into picture to put limits on what a Government can and cannot do. Constitution does not PROVIDE the rights to people - only God does that. Instead it CURTAILS the powers of the Government so as to not impinge the rights provided to the Individual by God.
Declaration of Independence + Constitution, for all their shortcomings, is one of the pinnacles of Human brilliance. Perhaps only rivalled by Magna Carta, and Jesus.
Beyond this, there is nothing else you can do to keep people safe. People own the responsibility to claim their rights. Only they can do it. As long as people are ignorant, the Evil can always trick them into giving away their rights.
Hence, Great Awakening. The rights have always been there ever since Humanity was created. Great Awakening is how not only will we all understand this, but we will never forget it even in future (hence the Precipice).
Sovereignty is not derived from Common Law. Common Law is a social construct and has nothing to do with who the Ultimate Authority of each person is. Nor is it derived from the word of God, if by "word" you mean the Bible (which is the most common modern interpretation of that term). If by "word" you mean the Intelligence of Source (AKA Sophia, the original meaning of "the Word of God") from which We are derived, then I agree.
But any debate on the source of our Sovereignty is irrelevant in this context because of your next sentence.
The Sovereignty of the individual was not "established beyond any doubt" in the DoI. On the contrary, there was a purposeful omission in it; to wit, property. The Right of Property was purposefully left off the list, which then left open the door for the Constitution to make the claim for all property without any need for pretense, which is exactly what it did (see the end of the fifth amendment e.g., though that is not the only place). If there had been an explicit statement of "property" in the DoI, things like property taxes, or income taxes, would have been a much more difficult sell. Without property taxes and income taxes there can be no bank loans. Thus, property was left off the list.
In addition to this glaring and purposeful omission, the DoI is not law. It has nothing to do with the law we actually got (Constitution). It was a flowery introduction, created in an explicitly separate document, that did not in any way affect our system of government, except as possibly inspiration for some of the people along the way. The Government we actually got is the actual Laws contained in the Constitution. The DoI is nothing when it comes to actual implementation of Law, and thus the System of Governance.
This is the modus operandi of the Cabal. Create a packaging (DoI) and then put the opposite of what the packaging says within the package itself. That is exactly what the Constitution is. It is the opposite of the DoI, by Law.
This is what we are told the Constitution did, and in a way it did, except that it contained within it no actual limits on the reach of the Government through the ability to add amendments to it, which was completely unnecessary (at least potentially, with a different document/form of government). It also made explicit claims on the Jurisdiction of the Individual. Just read the 5th amendment, since it is the most obvious proof of that. There are quite a few other places contained within the original doc, and the amendments that are also clearly such Jurisdictional violations on the Individual in contradiction to the flowery words of the DoI, but the fifth amendment is so blatantly obvious, I don't even need to further explain the fuckery, so I use it as my "go to proof." Just read it. It is nothing but Jurisdictional violations, declaring the Government Sovereign in absolute terms, explicitly stating that our "unalienable Rights [of] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are subject to the whims of the people who run the Government. It also lays explicit claim on all property.
Once you read the Protocols of Zion, and you understand that it is at least possible that the Cabal created all the worlds governments that we have today, and they created the DoI (packaging) and the Constitution (contents of the package), everything makes sense.
We have the government we have because the Cabal had the plan to take us to where we are today. That is why it was created with fuckery, that is why it had flowery words as "spirit." that is why there were very important omissions (property), that is why things proceeded as they did to today. It was planned that way over 250 years ago.
This is what we are told. This is one of those "repeat the lie enough times and it becomes truth" things. The Constitution made explicit claims for Government as Sovereign, and all citizens as vassals. It was "brilliant" in the sense that it sold The Big Lie to whole world, using Law Magic, without most people seeing it.
This also is what we are told. This is also a lie. There is no need (requirement) for a government to ever make claims on the Jurisdiction of the Individual. There is no "safety" reason, there is no "protection of Rights" reason, there is no "national security" reason. Fraudulent claims on Jurisdiction are done for one reason and one reason only, because someone wants to Rule.
I agree, but it is trivially easy to trick people if you own everything and you plan centuries in advance.
Agreed.