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