the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the actual People in charge; the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves Governmental Corporations which fraudulently lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution and the System of Laws we have was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights redundant. Worse, any "bill of rights" AKA statement of what a persons Rights are Limits those Rights and necessarily subverts the Individual's Sovereignty.

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the actual People in charge; the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves Governmental Corporations which fraudulently lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution and the System of Laws we have was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights redundant. Worse, any "bill of rights" AKA statement of what a persons Rights are Limits those Rights and necessarily subverts the Individual's Sovereignty.

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the actual People in charge; the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves Governmental Corporations which fraudulently lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights redundant. Worse, any "bill of rights" AKA statement of what a persons Rights are Limits those Rights and necessarily subverts the Individual's Sovereignty.

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the actual People in charge; the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves Governmental Corporations which fraudulently lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the actual People in charge; the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery to show is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. These people were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all except as they counted as "population" when drawing political lines of "representation".
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Men who did not hold a property title and all Women couldn't do shit. Women were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all.
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all and are stated explicitly as having no Rights whatsoever (which is a fraud).
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Women couldn't do shit. Women were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all.
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right from the other two because it takes a social agreement to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all.
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Women couldn't do shit. Women were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all.
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society. This is a slightly different Right than the other two because it takes a society to make clear what a person's "property" is; Natural Law doesn't address it directly (some gray area).

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all.
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Women couldn't do shit. Women were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all.
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights

the simple concept of Constitutional Representation

From a security standpoint, a "Republic" is a potential vulnerability, reducing the will of the People to "representation" that may or may not actually be represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but lauding it as some sort of "greatest thing ever" over a Democracy (Majority Rule, AKA Mob Rule) is a lie told to adults to make them feel better about the system that is in place when they are treated like children.

The Bill of Rights, being INALIENABLE

The DoI gave lip service to the Sovereignty of the Individual:

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.

This is more than a list of "unalienable Rights," this is a statement of every person being Sovereign. It also includes their Jurisdiction by Natural Law, to wit: Life and Liberty. You always have the Right to defend for your Life and your "Freedom to choose your own path." These are inalienable. It is impossible to take The Right To Defend away from you for as long as you live. John Locke, the inspiration for these words included Property as an inalienable Right, i.e. a thing for which you have the Right to defend with the full force of your ability without fear of reprisal from society.

The Constitution however did not include these ideas. On the contrary, it directly subverted them. There are numerous examples within the Constitution which shows this. Here are three because they are easy:

• 3/5ths compromise. Slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for "representation" purposes only. They themselves were not "represented." Indeed, they did not count as human at all.
• Only men who fully owned land (not owned by a bank, or other title holder) could vote. Women couldn't do shit. Women were not "represented." Within the framework of the government, they were not counted as people at all.
• The fifth amendment gives several conditions under which a person becomes property of the government and strips them of their inalienable Rights. The easiest part of this fuckery is at the end:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Government is your Sovereign. It can take your property (that which is under your Jurisdiction) whenever they want. In other words, they are specifically laying claim to your Jurisdiction. The Government of course being the “representatives.”

The Constitution was signed by people, but it was a Treaty for States, thus the Jurisdiction of the US Govt. overwrites the Jurisdiction of the States, which are themselves frauds which lay claim to the Individual’s Jurisdiction.

We have been taught that the Constitution was the greatest thing ever. Who taught us that?

Who created all the schools? Who wants us to trust in the Govt.? Who controls the thoughts and ideas of all sides of the conversation through control of all the institutions? Here’s a hint, the first name starts with a “C” (or a “K”) and the last name rhymes with Ba’al.

The problem with Government is not whether or not it’s a “Republic” or a “Democracy” or a Whatever. The problem with Government is fraudulent claims to a Sovereign Individuals Jurisdiction. Our government had it built in from the beginning. The DoI gave it lip service, the Constitution completely subverted it. Lauding the Constitution leads inevitably to the same tyranny we experience today. It was created in the way it was, under a false pretense, specifically so that people would fight for the system they put in place to Rule Us.

Any Treaty that makes perfectly clear that all signatories are Sovereign Ultimate Authority over their Jurisdiction makes the Bill of Rights