January 31, 2023

Patriotism/Belief in Constitutionalism Is a Religion Where People Believe That Document Applies To All Men Despite Overwhelming Evidence To The Contrary…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If the federalists acting upon their federally constituted authority were interested in proving that the constitution is applicable towards all men they would then be protecting you, your life, liberty, and property, they wouldn’t be violating it by forcing you to pay them. Or go to jail. U.S. citizen subjects still think it’s “their” government, their public lands, they still blame everyone else but themselves for their condition, and U.S. citizen subjects still choose to ignore black ink on white paper that irrefutably proves they are the property not the owners of the property.. So, Patriotism/belief in constitutionalism is a religion where people believe that document applies to them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary…Obviously only those treating the vast majority of mankind here in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. unequally have the constitutional capacity to do that, to do whatever they want to anyone anywhere.. Which means those victims have no such rights, equal with their persecutors. They wouldn’t destroy the environment, the ecological and biological habitat we all need to live off of and blame us for that destruction..

{A deep forensic analysis of the history of federalism, ever since George Washington did Daniel Shay, to now, that history reminds me of the mafia or of “gangs” going around to local businesses selling protection pay by the month, pay up and nobody busts the business owners windows out and loots his business, or worse eventually kills the business owner.}

I haven’t come across one rational reasonable argument that actually addresses any of the legal historical facts that have been shared here that are asserted to be “weak” or “less plausible” or old history that is irrelevant. Nothing is offered to show that the facts the legal historical cites shared are wrong. Those that choose to run for cover cry and hide have not even attempted to address the actual issues concerning the documented terms of legal historical content, the fruits of those operating upon those documents foundational claims, and their actions in comparison to those terms which imply those amazing terms were not intended for all men but for only some men. Anyone who calls that type of reaction to the evidence “critical thinking” is crazy as a shit house rat.

Power never leaves the Posterity so since you’re powerless as a subject of the will of the Legitimate Posterity you are not nor were you ever of the Posterity.. PERIOD.. The real Posterity are laughing at the U.S. citizen clowns…They’ve made clowns of their chattel property… This ought to piss you off, it did me.. I became very pissed off about this trick.. But you clowns instead of facing up to this reality only got mad at the messenger.. because after all you’re clowns..

“*41 Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of Government—the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. According to the principle of this decision, therefore, the States have no power to lay any tax on their inhabitants; and if they have no power to tax, it follows that they have no power to enable them to keep up their State Governments; and without State Governments, they have no power to keep themselves alive, as States. The principle comes to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self-preservation. On the one hand, then, Congress may convert the General Government into a dictator; on the other, the States have not retained the power of self-preservation. This is McCulloch vs. Maryland. It is to this that the Supreme Court rule leads. Did the makers of the Constitution intend any such rule as this? […] […] *55 But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. – Ga. 1854. Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga.)

Constitutional Law 92 Keynote 665 92 – Constitutional Law 92VI – Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions 92VI(A) – Persons Entitled to Raise Constitutional Questions; Standing 92VI(A)1 – In General 92k665 k. – In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k42(2)) No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it. [The States are the parties to it.]

“If people haven’t learnt by now, that the political system is an exclusive system representing the Self-Ennobling Ones interests, and that it is impossible for any party regardless of what is said of their political leanings, to genuinely represent people away from those prioritising interests of the Self-Ennobling Ones, then they deserve what they get. To reiterate, all, absolutely all political parties represent the exclusive interests of the Self-Ennobling Ones; that is why this happens regardless the party, left, right, moderate, or extreme –”ThereIsNoDebt

The Self-Ennobling Ones and their Clergy of liars are the priests of Rome and their Vicar of Satan..

I’m NOT cowering in my cave.. I know bullshit when I see it..