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.
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.
Again you are getting lost in the words, so before I address this, confirm that the core issue you have here is that the word "Sovereign" was omitted from the Declaration.
It would be far more accurate to say that the core issue I have is that a clear statement of individual Sovereignty was omitted from the Constitution.
The Declaration is irrelevant, as it is not law, and plays no part in our system of government, except as occasional inspiration, and mostly just as a purposeful confusion.
The DoI is the carrot that can be pointed to when the stick (Constitution) is shoved up your ass.
I disagree. We are talking about points of law. The words, their meanings (by which I mean their vernacular, i.e., their common misunderstanding), definition (according to the law), inflection, placement, sentence structure, are all that matters, because that is how Law Magic works.
Tell me as succinctly as you can, what "individual Sovereignty" is defined as, either in Blacks Law or any other source you consider suitable for the "Law Magic" ?
First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.
From BLD:
Also:
There is your "succinct" answer.
There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."
Not so succinct:
The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.
They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.
Aside
Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:
I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:
I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written while actually trying to understand it and not have realized that.
You also keep saying things like:
From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.
Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.
Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.