Ok, so let's take it at face value that he was correct, (which he is not, he is off by miles on his dates and legal terms). But he states that the constitutional governance of the US was disbanded in 1999 when the US of A became a corporate entity, which is in debt to foreign banks. And thus we the people also became individual corporate extensions of the greater corporation.
He then states the military is in control, not the congress and congress is just a toothless show to placate the masses and to keep stability through deception. But then goes on to say the Military is obligated to arrest congress if they go outside the constitutional boundaries of governance.
His logic is so flawed it is hard to decide which logical fallacy to begin with. If there is no constitution and congress has no teeth. Then the military would have no right to arrest congress for going outside of the bounds of the constitution because the nation state and its' constitution are already dissolved. You can't have it both ways.
If the US is a corporation then, like any other corporation, it is beholden to its' share holders. In this case the share holders, ie. the banks, own the corporation and all subsidiaries, ie. we the people. Any military action taken would be dictated by the share holders, not the constitution. He can't have it both ways.
He is wrong and does not even understand what he is saying.
Ok, so let's take it at face value that he was correct, (which he is not, he is off by miles on his dates and legal terms). But he states that the constitutional governance of the US was disbanded in 1999 when the US of A became a corporate entity, which is in debt to foreign banks. And thus we the people also became individual corporate extensions of the greater corporation.
He then states the military is in control, not the congress and congress is just a toothless show to placate the masses and to keep stability through deception. But then goes on to say the Military is obligated to arrest congress if they go outside the constitutional boundaries of governance.
His logic is so flawed it is hard to decide which logical fallacy to begin with. If there is no constitution and congress has no teeth. Then the military would have no right to arrest congress for going outside of the bounds of the constitution because the nation state and its' constitution are already resolved. You can't have it both ways.
If the US is a corporation then, like any other corporation, it is beholden to its' share holders. In this case the share holders, ie. the banks, own the corporation and all subsidiaries, ie. we the people. Any military action taken would be dictated by the share holders, not the constitution. He can't have it both ways.
He is wrong and does not even understand what he is saying.
Ok, so let's take it at face value that he was correct, (which he is not, he is off on his by miles on his dates and legal terms). But he states that the constitutional governance of the US was disbanded 1999 when the US of A became a corporate entity, which is in debt to foreign banks. And thus we the people also became individual corporate extensions of the greater corporation.
He then states the military is in control, not the congress and congress is just a toothless show to placate the masses and to keep stability through deception. But then goes on to say the Military is obligated to arrest congress if they go outside the constitutional boundaries of governance.
His logic is so flawed it is hard to decide which logical fallacy to begin with. If there is no constitution and congress has no teeth. Then the military would have no right to arrest congress for going outside of the bounds of the constitution because the nation state and its' constitution are already resolved. You can't have it both ways.
If the US is a corporation then, like any other corporation, it is beholden to its' share holders. In this case the share holders, ie. the banks, own the corporation and all subsidiaries, ie. we the people. Any military action taken would be dictated by the share holders, not the constitution. He can't have it both ways.
He is wrong and does not even understand what he is saying.