I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

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.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

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.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

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.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution, in contradiction to the DoI, 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

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.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

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 may be causing some consternation.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

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. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This, along with the first quote (we are all "citizens," thus responsible for the debt) ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

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.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more, but to succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 of they crossed the line where someone felt they would lead to "incitement," such as the seditious words of Mr. Scheck "don't go die for the corrupt corporate 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more, but to succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more, but to succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more, but to succinct (lol), the enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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," 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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 Aristocrats 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," 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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 Aristocrats 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," 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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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 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:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 Aristocrats 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," 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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."

I already gave you that feed back here

And that was exactly the point where I stopped trying to make the case.

Like I said, you are arguing points we already agree on

Perhaps you do not appreciate the timing of my seeing your responses and my creating responses to you.

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.

Thank you for clearly stating the only point where we apparently disagree.

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.

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 change in structure of US, nor do they rule out the need for such a change

There was no need for such a change because the Constitution 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 the individual is instead 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. What LAWS have subverted our rights? Jesus, where to begin. How about the infringements on the 1st amendment.

Because the government is Sovereign to a group of vassals, it can do anything it wants. Let's look at Schenck v. United States, 1919. From wikipedia:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

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 Aristocrats 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," 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. 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."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

There is more, there is so much more. The enslavement of all people in the 14th amendment makes it very clear.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

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.

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime

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."

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Then there's this one. This ensured that we will be forever indebted to the banks. 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 had completely taken over the nation. There was no escape. That is why there "was no need for another government."