This is Constitutionally correct and logical. Activist judges (traitors) are interpreting a gray area due to some different or nonexistent language pertaining the VP in order to allow foreign agents to do their thing unlawfully. I am just repeating their BS. I agree with you.
If POTUS and CIC roles have been split, then it gets interesting. If POTUS formerly was CEO of a foreign-owned Corporation outside of the Constitution, then this probably explains how a British citizen (Obama) was selected by the owner of the Corporation (ostensibly the British Crown) to be its CEO. Legal, but not lawful. Act of 1871 which established foreign-owned, DC-based, US Corp has likely been undone by now, imo. So we revert to 1861 Constitution or 1788 Constitution.
This is Constitutionally correct and logical. Activist judges (traitors) are interpreting a gray area due to some different or nonexistent language pertaining the VP in order to allow foreign agents to do their thing unlawfully. I am just repeating their BS. I agree with you.
If POTUS and CIC roles have been split, then it gets interesting. If POTUS formerly was CEO of a foreign-owned Corporation outside of the Constitution, then this probably explains how a British citizen (Obama) was selected by the owner of the Corporation (ostensibly the British Crown) to be its CEO. Legal, but not lawful. Act of 1871 which established foreign-owned, DC-based, US Corp has likely been undone by now, imo. So we revert to 1861 Constitution or 1788 Constitution.
👍 I’m really tired of the judicial shit show.