I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes* doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

*For example, George Washington forced (they had no choice) all of his men to be inoculated with small pox, and 3% of them died

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be (whether they want to be or not) subjects to the Government (really, they are, legally speaking, subjects (vassals) to the people who run the government) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the systems that enforce it through coercion (police, DOJ, etc.), gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be (whether they want to be or not) subjects to the Government (really, they are, legally speaking, subjects (vassals) to the people who run the government) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the systems that enforce it through coercion (police, DOJ, etc.), gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be (whether they want to be or not) subjects to the Government (really, they are, legally speaking, subjects (vassals) to the people who run the government) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the force systems that enforce it through coercion, gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be, whether they want to or not, subjects to the Government (really, they are, legally speaking, subjects (vassals) to the people who run the government) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the force systems that enforce it through coercion, gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government (whether they want to or not) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system, and the force systems that enforce it through coercion, gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government (whether they want to or not) is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be, whether they want to or not, subjects to the Government is not the point. My point is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system gives people no choice.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be America's King and court (we call them "President" and "Congress," but from a legal perspective, they are identical to King and Court), were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government or not, my point is this is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be King, and who would be his court, were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government or not, my point is this is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in your sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be King, and who would be his court, were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government or not, my point is this is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means. That false understanding is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in this sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.

I cannot follow the fact you think the 5th Amendment is a slavery clause.

Let's break it down.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

To paraphrase, "no one will be held without due process, EXCEPT in actual service in time of war OR if the public is in danger." In other words, anyone in the military or militia WILL be subject to being held without due process, anytime there is an assessment of "public danger". Public danger is the same as "National Security," which is whatever those in charge believe it is at the time. It is subject to the whims of those in charge. In addition, we have been at war all but 16 years of this country, so the "national security" excuse isn't even required, but it's there if they want it to be. This says explicitly that every single person in the military has NO RIGHTS, and is completely subject to the whims of those in charge of the government.

Now rectify that with the draft. Military service at the time was not optional. Technically, that is still true, though there have been changes to the constitution (14th amendment specifically) that made everyone a slave, so this part of the fifth amendment is really redundant. I am making the case for it being there from the beginning however, so I am focusing on this.

Women didn't really have any rights under Constitutional law at the time (though they had some under common law). Men in the military had no rights, and military service for all men was not optional anytime the PTB willed it. That doesn't mean there weren't plenty of people believing they had rights that the government couldn't take away, but this provides a legal path to take them away on the whims of those in charge. That they only chose to exercise those rights sometimes doesn't mean the legal path wasn't in there from the beginning.

To continue:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This says that a person WILL be deprived of life, liberty, or property if "due process of law" deems it necessary. OK, but who determines those laws? Who determines what "due process" is? Who determines what you can or can't do? Is it We The People? No, it is the people who run the Government.

"But "We The People" are the government!"

Are we?

In the beginning, the only people who could even vote for who would be King, and who would be his court, were wealthy land owners, AKA the Aristocracy. The Government was created and run by the Aristocrats from the beginning. The vast majority of people had no say at all. People who didn't own land (the majority of the populace), women, and slaves had no say whatsoever in who ran the country. And then everyone was subject to the whims of whichever elected Aristocrat got the most campaign money, and support from the media, both of which were controlled by the Cabal, then as now.

Importantly, the rest of We The People had no choice but to follow this system. You can't "opt out" of the Government if you think it's Tyrannical. There is no exit clause. It was designed that way on purpose. The people who signed the Treaty we call the Constitution signed for everyone. What about those who didn't want that? They had no say. They had no Rights. They were forced to be subjects to the Government, and their "due process." These things were, from the beginning, subject to the whims of the people in charge.

Whether you think people should be subjects to the Government or not, my point is this is the LEGAL STRUCTURE of the system.

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

This states explicitly that you do not own your property. The Government, or rather the people in charge of the government, can take your property any time they want. Your "ownership" of property is subject to the whims of those in charge. Who really owns your property if someone can take it away whenever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Also, family ties absolutely matter. See: the Bible.

I was talking about you taking it personally and tying it to your family. As if the fact that you have family ties to these people automatically means they couldn't have possibly done anything untoward. No, your family relationship has nothing to do with whether or not someone 250 years ago did something bad. I'm sorry, but that is not evidence for your argument. THAT is what I was saying.

If you are going to respond, please do so with specific reference to my arguments. You have taken me out of context several times in your response. You have to really try to understand what I am saying. These concepts are not trivial, and we have been trained to ignore the arguments I am presenting. That doesn't mean I want you to agree with me. I just want you to actually address what I am saying, and not follow your training and ignore the key points.

anarchy is a great way for people to get screwed over very quickly with no chance at justice.

This suggests you have no idea what the word "anarchy" means, which is training that everyone receives. The last thing the PTB want people to really understand is "anarchy" because then they lose power. The assumptions in this sentence are completely incorrect. That is a larger discussion however.