Funny, but not as accurate as you might think.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person. In theory that "someone" could be a group of Natural Persons (Communism e.g.), but in practice (even in Communism) it's generally just one person (the President, Prime Minister, etc.).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

The U.S. Government was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

The Long Con.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons (Communism e.g.), but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

The U.S. Government was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

The Long Con.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

The U.S. Government was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

The Long Con.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

The U.S. Government was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made as a Sovereign Ruler (a King, subjugating We The People), from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

The DoI was written in the way that it was to create The Illusion that the government that followed respected the Rights of the Sovereign Individual. It was all a scam, from the very beginning.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included a reasonable exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made this way, from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or, in theory, a group of Natural Persons, but in practice it's generally just one person).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included an exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made this way, from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. If "property" is a thing, someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or group of Natural Persons).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included an exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made this way, from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.

Funny, but not as accurate as you might think. It is the Constitution itself that allows for all the fuckery that currently exists.

I think that most people appreciate that each person is the Ultimate Authority of their own life. When it comes down to it, you make your own choices. Even if you are coerced into only having two really bad options (death or compliance, jail or compliance, etc.), in the end, it is You that are making the choice. In other words, every single person on the planet is a King or Queen (a Sovereign Entity). Their Jurisdiction is themselves. In any social construct that has a concept of "property" (external to the body), an individual's Jurisdiction extends to a persons property as well. Someone owns the property. That someone is always a Natural Person (or group of Natural Persons).

While the Declaration of Independence gave lip service to the Sovereignty of each person, the Constitution left that out. Not only did it not make explicit (or implicit) the recognition of Sovereignty of the individual, but it made the claim that the individual was NOT Sovereign, but was rather, a subject of the Sovereign Government.

It does it several times, but the easiest to show is in the Fifth Amendment, and the easiest part of the Fifth Amendment fuckery to show is at the end.

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

The documents by John Locke that were the inspiration of the DoI make clear that property ownership is an inalienable Right for any Sovereign Entity. This part of the Fifth Amendment makes clear that the individual does not have property Rights, but rather, is allowed to use property at the pleasure of the Sovereign Governmental Corporation (legal entity).

If the Constitution had made explicit statements of the Sovereignty of the individual (and allowed for signing the Treaty we call the Constitution as optional, and included an exit clause), none of the fuckery that followed could have ever happened.

It was made this way, from the very beginning, on purpose to lead us to where we are today.