Property taxes aren't unconstitutional. On the contrary, the constitution explicitly states that all property (not just land or houses, but all property) belongs to the US Govt. Not only does all property belong to the US Govt, but all people do as well. This was built into the Constitution (both of these proclamations are explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment if you know the other laws on the books at the time, but you can find them stated implicitly in the original document itself in numerous places).
Of course the US Govt doesn't actually exist. It is a corporation (which means, by definition, an entity that only exists within a certain framework of law, aka a legal fiction). Like all such entities that don't actually exist, the claims of ownership are made by people and separated into the controllers (trustees) and the beneficiaries, who are also always people. This is the nature of Trust Law. The trustees and beneficiaries are ALWAYS ultimately people, no matter how many corporations (legal fictions) fall in the middle to confuse the issue. At the time of the writing of the constitution, the controllers (trustees) of all the land and all the people that are "owned" by the US Govt were the Aristocrats that created it. They were also, on their whim, the beneficiaries, a condition built into the constitution itself. The entire thing was designed to ensure that those Aristocrats would always retain the power over everything.
How was this accomplished? Well, originally it was designed such that only land owners could vote. Less than 3% of the population were land owners, all of them Aristocrats, descended from land owners who were themselves the direct descendants of the Lords of Britain and Holland, all intermarrying to preserve their bloodlines. These few who could vote remained the few who could vote for quite some time since land could only be purchased in 320 acre lots. These land buying laws ensured that no one who was not already filthy rich could possibly buy land.
Things eventually changed, but all sorts of laws and other social constructs remained to ensure that only the Aristocrats could possibly become Senators, Presidents, Judges, etc. Though the reasons have changed over the years, that situation still remains today.
People who worry about whether or not a thing is "constitutional" rather than whether or not a thing is Right (or related to a persons inalienable Rights) do not understand what the Constitution was: It was a document created by the American Aristocrats in protest against the King of England, declaring themselves their own Rulers, rejecting the monarchy and embracing their own Aristocracy. It was also highly influenced by the Bankers. Indeed, the Bankers (Rothschild et al) inspired and funded the US Revolution (both sides), just like every other war of the past four centuries or so.
Those who espouse the "Constitution" as being the best thing ever have never actually read it in earnest and/or are completely oblivious to the other laws that made up the government at the time. They are instead spouting off the nonsense they have been trained to believe by their Controlled Opposition agents. We are where we are today because the Constitution was designed to lead us here.
You forgot "they own all the umpires, all teams are actually the same team, all players are paid by the same source (even if they don't realize it), all media agencies that report on the game are theirs, and they created the game in the first place."
Oh ya, and The House Always Wins.
All anti-speech laws are unconstitutional, yet six of them have been passed in the past century. They have been around so long now, that today we accept them as completely "fine" and "reasonable."
The history of how they passed, who passed them, and their justification at the time is far more interesting than most realize, because no one cares to look into them, we just accept it.
I wonder what the military operations were that replaced the top of the pyramid...
I wonder what the "top of the pyramid" really is. I have all sorts of ideas based on little bits and pieces of evidence I have stitched together. Quite a few of my ideas don't involve human beings. :)
I really have no idea though. Maybe someday I'll find out.
I personally don't think there are any BH operations anymore. I think Q replaced the tippy top with themselves. I can't see any other possible path to victory. Thus, I think that Q is directing and/or allowing the Cabal plan to play out with enough tweaks and fourth wall breaks that instead of it being hidden, it is completely obvious to the audience (We The People).
What does that mean "replaced the tippy top?" All hidden organizations (like a terrorist organization, or secret society, etc.) work on a "need to know" basis, where only the very top knows everything, and all the tiers below the top have less and less knowledge and every single one of them follows directions except the tippy top. Those underlings might seem to us to be very high level people, but they are still only privy to what they need to know, thus they can be directed if their direction comes in a format that they don't question.
Regardless of if it is true that the WH are now at the top of the pyramid as directors, I suggest that anything that is such a fourth wall break, or "agenda breaker" like this Olympic scene is, is almost certainly a WH operation. I suggest that is the case even if the BH think they are in charge at some level of their operation.
The best way to tell who is in charge is by looking at what the actual effect is. We think the BH are "making mistakes." I don't think that is true at all. My investigation suggests that almost nothing that plays a substantial part in the social mindspace is organic. It is all contrived. "All the world's a stage" is more true than you can possibly imagine. Thus the effect was also "the plan all along," even when that seems like it must be impossible. I have found far too many examples of such genius level, long and short term contrivances in my investigation.
Legally speaking, there is no path from We The People to the CIA. The CIA was created by Rockefeller using the Nazi Intelligence Agency and the OSS (which was also created by Rockefeller) which suggests that it may not be a "good" agency to begin with. But more important than it's origins is that there is no part of the government (any government) who has Jurisdiction over it. It sits outside of our legal system. The only legal path that the government can take to curb the activities of the CIA is to abolish the government's relationship to it completely (cancel the contract).
This puts all of the activities, at least ostensibly, back under the purview of the executive branch.
I agree that the paths to fuckery there are still rampant, and this doesn't solve the Big Government or Big Brother problems, but it is a step in that direction. The CIA operates extra jurisdictionally. It must go. Whatever comes after is easier to deal with. The only problem comes if people think this solves the problems. It doesn't. It solves one problem only. As long as we keep that in mind, it's a good step.
The value is decided between the parties involved in the transaction.
Agreed. The decision of how much something is worth is weighed based on a things intrinsic value and it's extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the value a thing has no matter what a person believes its value is. For example, Silver has value as the best elemental conductor of both heat and electricity. It has value because it does not oxidize in the interior (it creates a patina, a stable oxide layer instead of "rust", an unstable oxide degradation like iron). It also has lustre, sheen, and visual appeal. This means that in industry, for electronics, and in jewelry (along with plenty of other real world use cases) it will always retain its value, no matter what you, or your would be trade partner believes.
No matter what a person is trading for, or what a person values their silver at, the silver never loses these valuable properties because they are a fundamental part of the universe.
BTC has zero such value. It can't be used for anything that would give it meaningful value.
BTC can have extrinsic value, because anything can have extrinsic value, and that is the "value decided" on that you are talking about. You are conflating the idea of extrinsic value (which both silver and BTC have) with intrinsic value of which only silver (in this comparison) has.
Again, in *ANY barter situation where one has a choice to trade for something with intrinsic value or something that has none, no one would EVER choose to trade for the thing with no intrinsic value.
I think the company will see value in accepting that Bitcoin.
Not if there is anything (like silver) that has intrinsic value that they could trade for instead.
Bitcoin can exist along with other crypto currencies and a gold backed currency
No it cannot. They cannot coexist, it is impossible. NO ONE would choose to trade for a currency without value when a currency with value exists. Please try to come up with any scenario where one would do so. I am fairly certain you won't, since no one ever has.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. That's just something we were deliberately conditioned to believe.
I agree completely. The path then is obvious; we mustn't tie ourselves to a single medium of exchange. On the contrary, the only possible path forward that solves all the problems is a blockchain tied pseudo-barter system.
Let the people and private business decide what they want to transact/trade/borrow or be paid incomes with. (free market)
Again, 100% agree. The problem is, if there are a thousand possible ways to conduct a transaction, NO ONE will choose to conduct it in a way where they give up something of value for something without it.
This isn't rocket science. A free market absolutely obliterates any trade item (currency in this case) without intrinsic value.
We need to get to the point where central bankers and the government aren't deciding what the value of our currency is worth and limiting alternative forms of transacting.
Agreed 100%. BTC cannot be a part of a path to this state for the reasons stated in the previous post (no value and hording). In the case of hording, any entity that hordes a currency controls it. A free market destroys hording, but it also destroys BTC because it has no value.
The people need to preserve their freedom to make their own choices and decide what has the most intrinsic value for them. We are more than an economy.
Again, I agree 100%. But it is completely obvious to anyone who has studied the economics and fuckery of the past, that BTC can't solve these issues that we both agree on. Indeed, it can't even be a part of such a solution, because it has, quite literally, nothing to offer.
Much of that could happen in a gold only world too.
Where did I suggest or imply anything about a "gold only world?" That would be just slightly better than BTC, but is still subject to hording. And indeed, the hording of gold has been a major driver of the world's economic history, and all it's fuckery, which is why I placed it as "number 3" in my "worst economic fuckery list" above.
That is based on my own years of research into what those problems are, how our monetary systems have been created, who created them, and how they were used to fuck with the economy and control the populace. Here are a couple of problems that BTC does not solve:
- Currency without intrinsic value.
This is the biggest offender in the history of currency fuckery. All currency without value was created by people who used it to grab power and enslave the people they forced to use it. No one uses a non-valued currency unless they feel they have no other choice. The only reason people today would even consider using BTC is because we have been trained for so long to believe that this is a viable solution that we have completely forgotten what it is like to use a currency with intrinsic value. The moment that there exists any currency with intrinsic value, any currency without it will be thrown away like the useless trash that it is.
Let's look at an example. Would you trade something that you have that you consider valuable, say a car for example, for something with intrinsic value, that you know other people will want, or something without value, that some people may want, but most would prefer the other stuff that has actual value?
I suggest that once the option is available, NO ONE will use a non-valued currency when a valued currency is available. BTC has exactly zero intrinsic value.
- Fractional Reserve Lending.
The second worst offender in history regarding currency fuckery is fractional reserve lending, which BTC does not solve, but isn't explicitly a problem with BTC either. It is however potentially a BTC problem that BTC doesn't address directly. I don't blame BTC for this. This is more of a general problem with the populace not understanding how big of an issue fractional reserve lending is.
- Hording.
The third worst offender of currency fuckery through time is hording. BTC is almost certainly already horded up the ying yang. It is likely that more than 90% of all BTC is owned by a single effective entity (hint: there is only a single corporation in the world). Relying on a single currency ensures that anyone who can horde it, will horde it, and in so doing can manipulate the entire economy and indeed, enslave the people, manipulate the government, etc.
1&3 are two of the biggest problems with currency in history, and BTC does not solve them. If it doesn't solve two out of three of the biggest problems with currency in history, and is still potentially subject to the second biggest problem, how then is it a "solution* to our currency issues?
I spent a solid year researching Cryptocurrency and Blockchain technology
There is nothing wrong with Cryptocurrency and blockchain. Most people who are against BtC aren't against those technologies, indeed, most are for those technologies. I personally think they are the future for sure. What I am against is Bitcoin for about a thousand reasons, none of which are that it is a cryptocurrency or that it uses blockchain tech.
While it's not perfect, it eliminates so many problems we have today.
It perpetuates some of the worst problems we have. There are other uses of blockchain that solve them. BtC is not the path.
I say we just do Satan as VP. Everything is so blatant now, anything less than the Big Guy himself with horns, tail, and wings on display wielding a pitch fork with body parts stuck on the end would just be a disappointment.
Having said that, I suppose Gruesome is a very close second.
It depends on who the government really is. If the REAL government is the NWO and he is doing work for the NWO then he should get paid, which it looks like he is.
It's only "treason" if you are working against the actual government. I suggest this shows who the government really is.
This is not the first time someone has gotten paid for "treason" that's not really treason. This is not the first time that the real government has been exposed. Perhaps however, it will be the straw that breaks the camels back, exposing The Machine.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Where by "beatings" i mean shit like above, which I think clearly qualifies as a beating, or at least it feels like one. And by "morale" i mean the morale of the masses, who don't even know that they are slaves, and that their morale is at an all time low, because they have nothing higher to compare it to...
Yet.
Yes. This is obviously part of The Show. If you see something so blatant that it isn't designed to persuade a change in beliefs, but is designed to ram it down someone's throat, it is almost certainly by design. An anti-propaganda propaganda so to speak.
I don't know what the play is with Vance, he looks like Pence 2.0 to me. But Nikki Haley is even more blatantly NWO. I don't care which "expert" thinks that Haley is the play, even if they are an "ex-Clinton adviser," there is nobody on the planet that thinks that Haley is one of the "good guys" at this point.
Having said that, the movie we are watching has got a lot of twists and turns in it, none of them are what they appear to be at first blush. Maybe Haley is on deck for exposure. Who knows?
The reason most people have mortgages is because houses are so expensive. We have lost the ability to build them ourselves. This is lost knowledge. We also build them in a way that is designed to fail. Instead of our houses lasting a thousand years, they last 30-70, and usually require quite a bit of incredibly expensive maintenance during their "lifetime."
We have lost the knowledge of how to build homes that last and work with the environment (fireproof, waterproof, healthy, etc.). But it isn't just "lost knowledge," it is also the rules, regulations, permits, inspectors, etc. that make it very difficult to build a home that is worthy of the name (and costs 1/10th the price to build). All of those systems, all of our property laws, what we can build what we can do with our property, were put in by the Cabal to ensure they control and own everything.
It is insidious and ubiquitous and evil as fuck.
We need to reclaim our world. It won't be easy, they are legally entrenched on every level. Of course it's all a fraud, but people believe in their system, so showing that is quite difficult.
the mortgage system is another bankster scam that is worthy of a while thread unto itself.
That is an intended up and coming part of my report/book. I'll get it out eventually. The short of it is that the housing market has always been controlled (since the Roman Empire at least) by the Banksters.
The home loan system put out after the Great Depression, followed by a huge reduction of cost in the housing market in the early 1950s made a huge number of people "home owners," far (FAR) more than prior to that time. It also normalized this system of "ownership" in the population, becoming part of the "American Dream." Of course these lucky buyers weren't really home owners, they were mortgage holders. Even those lucky few that paid off their mortgage (which was far more in the beginning than later (the first hits always free!)) still don't own their home, the banks do. As it turns out, "property tax" doesn't pay for schools and other community institutions, BONDS pay for those things AKA Bank Loans. All property tax goes to pay the interest (usury) on those Bonds, the majority of which are held by banks, with the remainder held by financial institutions (and some few held by private interests AKA super rich dudes, but far, far fewer than is pretended). Of course Financial Institutions (Blackrock e.g.) is really just another word for "bank" in "investor" clothing, so the banks own the whole thing.
If you do not pay the lease on your property (property tax) the BANKS will confiscate your property, through the municipality that took out the Bond in the first place. They have the legal right, through the wording of all municipal bonds, to regain their "losses."
The banks legally own everything in the world. This is only a snippet of one of the legal paths to that ownership.
The whole WTC complex was built by Rockefeller, who are the American Dons for the Cabal, owning pretty much the entire shebang. Building 7 was the home for Salomon Smith Barney, which was basically Blackrock before Blackrock, but was having some major legal issues. Their destruction ended the investigations.
Also tenants of Building 7 were the NY center for the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, SEC, DOD, and various big money services (like federal home loans, credit cards, etc.). An awful lot of important records were destroyed in that building collapse.
The night before the attack, Donald Rumsfeld had announced that the DOD had "lost" two trillion dollars, which at the time was the entire National Debt. The next day the "plane" that hit the Pentagon just so happened to hit the tiny area where the records of that "lost" money were kept, shutting down that investigation too.
Of course the amount of plane bits found at the Pentagon could fit in the back of a pickup truck, and somehow the most secure building in the world has zero footage of a plane hitting it, but those are unimportant pieces of information, and anyone who thinks about them is just a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Similarly, the plane that crashed in Penn. didn't actually have any plane parts. Somehow these 747s are disintegrating.
Meh, it happens.
The main buildings themselves had just been bought by some stooge (Rockefeller crony) who insured them for more than their market value (if that phrase has any meaning on this scale). As it turns out, he made a killing on his "loss."
The off targets of 911 (building 7 and the Pentagon) tell a far more interesting story than the main WTC buildings themselves. You can dig pretty far into Building 7 and it's tenants. It gets pretty crazy in there. Looking at the pics and videos of the Pentagon shows a very interesting story as well.
I think the primary purpose of the WTC attack was as a form of false flag propaganda, perpetrated by the DOD/CIA/MIC/Mossad to motivate the "war on terror," a blanket term that gave the US Govt carte blanche attack power on the entire middle east. They could go into any country and just start killing through the "war on terror," all they had to do was say that terrorists existed there. If there are none there, put some there yourself. But I don't think the "off targets" were random, and show how big this thing really is. It destroyed some of the most important records for the biggest financial institutions in the world, and there is only ONE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD.
So how high up does 911 go? All the way to the tippy top of the Pyramid.
There is an easy way out of this problem. Build your own home, make it fireproof, and don't bother with insurance.
People have been building fireproof homes for thousands of years, and none of them have insurance. It just so happens to be a far better and cheaper home in every other way as well. Our present day building methods, "building codes" and insurance are all Bankster scams which lead conveniently to the problem and solution you outline.
What an interesting time to take a break. WWIII just around the corner. Stock Market and the US dollar collapse imminent, Weekend at Biden's playing on the big screen, etc.
What is "HOT?" Does that mean hot war? Is it just a catch all term? I have a feeling it's going to be the "flood" from:
Slow drip > Flood
I mean, it already feels like it's flooding, but it can definitely get more Floody. Perhaps August is the SHTF month. Perfect time for the Country's "leadership" to take a long vacation.
I have a feeling August will be fun.
/Popcorn
Yes. Joe Biden is probably dead and whatever you are seeing now is someone in a Joe Biden mask. But I think there's a really good chance that this has been the case for the past five years. So then, what has changed?
In order to reveal that these things can happen on the world stage, you need the "God perspective" transition scene like we are seeing now. Movies require transitions. They require the little bits and bobs that stitch the plot together. Like, spiderman get's bit by a spider and becomes superhuman. But you need that scene of the tiny spider crawling on Peter Parker's skin to believe it. It's not something that anyone would have seen. Peter didn't see it. No one else saw it. But the audience saw it, thus the audience believes. It was a transition scene from a God perspective that stitched it all together.
We need to see the current Biden in a mask, or as AI in order to understand that even at the highest level of the world stage, such deceptions happen. That is the current scene playing out. We must lose faith in our reality to start questioning it in earnest.
It's all a part of The Show.
I assume you mean the context of things like the Federalist Papers and other documents created by the people you are calling the "Founding Fathers" (FF). That is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant as a work of philosophy, or a work of history, but as a work of law, which is what the Constitution is, it is 100% irrelevant. A judge might take that, or other such documents, such as the DoI, into consideration when adjudicating Constitutional Law, but they might not as well, and indeed, there is evidence that both have happened with the vast majority (as far as I have found) falling into the category of "FF opinions don't mean shit." That is because there is nothing that requires that to be the case. Thus, "what is Constitutional" becomes a matter of the whims of the Judge.
I too had previously had faith in the Constitution and the "intentions of the Founding Fathers." I too had read many of their documents (Federalist Papers, John Locke, etc.). Upon awakening I began a whole new investigation. I wanted to know how we got from there to here. At every turn of that investigation I ran into two surprising things I did not expect; a direct tie to Bankers, and signs of Controlled Opposition; signs of intentions different than how they appeared on the surface. These things presented both conflicts of interest and reasonable doubts on the actual intentions of the people who created our country. There were all sorts of hidden things, things lying underneath, that made me dig deeper the second time around. And again, I focused on what actually happened, not on the flowery words and philosophical musings.
Because of all these things, I suggest it is incredibly important to look at laws first, and opinions second. Opinions, no matter who wrote them, have no place in law (what actually guides development) unless by the whims of some individual with power. Like, you can find instances of people quoting Founding Father's opinion pieces in congressional records, but what actually wins in the end is the law. The Law is the Ultimate Authority. The opinions may or may not be influential or even get lip service at all. They are just works of philosophy, nothing more, and are always treated as such. The law however is always treated as LAW.
When you look at the actual constitution and the Bill of Rights, and you put it into the context of the actual laws, you see exactly what I am saying. The philosophies of a few people are irrelevant to what actually guides society in the legal sense. If there is a conflict between the Law and the Opinion, almost every time the Law wins. That is why the Law matters, and the Opinions do not.
I also can't stress enough how much is hidden; hidden associations, hidden agendas, hidden purposes. Believing you know the actual intentions of any of the writers of those opinions is foolish. There are all sorts of people in such positions of former power, with their flowery philosophies, that are provably compromised, or reasonably suspected as compromised. Even for those that are not, assuming they are acting in earnest is foolish. There are literally spies everywhere.
Looking into Benjamin Franklin for example brings up all sorts of very questionable motives. He was certainly an Elitist of the most profound magnitude. He was an Aristocrat, a Malthusian (he inspired the Malthus population control philosophies), a eugenicist (before eugenics was cool), and a high level Freemason (which automatically means oaths of fealty and hidden agendas, even if we don't know what those agendas are). His past is painted as "underprivileged" yet investigation shows that nothing could be further from the truth. He was born at the top of society and had all of the privileges and opportunities afforded to all other members of the Aristocracy. He was massively influential in so many pieces of fuckery it's difficult to comprehend until you dig in. There are even all the signs that he was a member of the Ritual Child Sacrifice Cult of Magic that has existed within the power structure for thousands of years.
That is a very brief synopsis of just one person. There are so many more. Once you take off the rose colored glasses and actually investigate these people, with an understanding of the specifics of the hidden power structure, you see all the signs of hidden agendas.
Take one more thing as example, since it is relevant to my original post. The DoI says:
There are numerous reasons to believe that "all men are created equal" DID NOT MEAN what you think it means, nevertheless, because of the topic of this piece of the thread I will not focus on that. I will focus on the second part:
John Locke, the supposed inspiration of these words was all about private ownership of property. It was essential in his philosophy that a person could own their own land, that it was not subject in any way to the whims of a Sovereign. For if a person's property was subject to a Sovereign (other than the person themselves), then they themselves were ultimately also subject (in every sense of that word) to that external "Sovereign," which is to say, slaves.
The DoI could have said:
and been perfectly in line with Locke, but it did not. A persons property (not just land, but all property) was left out. Why? Well, because then the Constitution couldn't later lay claim to all property, or at least if it did the hypocrisy would be obvious. This lack of inclusion of property in the DoI and the explicit claims to all property by the Sovereign Government (which really means (legally speaking) the Sovereign people controlling the government) ensured that We The People would always be subject (slaves) to those people. You have a God Given Right (Natural Law) to Defend Your Property. The Constitution takes that Right away. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IF ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT. And legally speaking, they can take it on a whim. Indeed, that happens all the time.
The IRS, as an acting agent of the Treasury Department (technically a private subcontractor, but still an "acting agent") can, on suspicion of a "tax crime," take all of your property, with no court that will adjudicate in your favor. That system, as evil as it is, stems from the omission in the DoI and the explicit statements in the Constitution. That system was inevitable and is completely legal, indeed, it was there from the foundation.
So whatever the "opinions" of the "Founding Fathers" may have been, or whatever you believe them to be, it is irrelevant to what actually happened, or what could happen,, because of the Laws as written.
The fuckery is there, from day one. Defending it does exactly zero people any good, and a whole lot of harm. Until we stop defending it, we can never break free of it's evils.