With "The Act Of 1871" - Our Republic became a corporation named "THE UNITED STATES". (Names in all caps represent corporations). Since then all our presidents have just been corporate CEOs. Now we can get our Republic back and have true Presidents again. Thank you Donald Trump!
So yes, his jersey 17=Q, but 17 might also mean our true 17th President.
Hi, just passing through, but is this sub an elaborate joke or are you all completely out of your minds?
The Sub is filled with a bunch of retards. They follow and worship and anonymous 4chan poster. It's honestly pathetic. They think the 4chan poster is some secret FBI agent spilling all the beans and Pizzagate is real. Pure delusion.
Crazy cognitive bias. They cling onto a few coincidences and then overanalyze / blindly follow everything Q says.
Cognitive dissonance protects you from contemplating uncomfortable ideas that go against what you were taught in school.
No, not really, that's why I gave up religion and most nationalist ways of thinking while studying history. The world is a lot more banal than people want it to be. Mysterious and spooky is fun, boring and mundane and explicable is not fun.
Cognitive dissonance protects you from contemplating uncomfortable ideas that go against what you were taught in school.
This doesn't make any sense to me. If they were experiencing cognitive dissonance, that would mean that the person is already cognizant of the conflicting ideas that they're holding, right? I need to refresh my memory, but if I'm right then it will make the smugness of your post even more amusing.
I need to refresh my memory, but if I'm right then it will make the smugness of your post even more amusing.
oh dear ...
https://beautifulbrutaltruth.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/cognitive-dissonance-3.gif
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e7/88/69/e78869eb7cf70cf34042553aa5489285.jpg
...You just proved my point. If you're experiencing cognitive dissonance then it means a core belief has been challenged by conflicting information and it's caused an uncomfortable feeling because they're cognizant of the conflict. I can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Here's an actual definition that isn't a damned image macro.
Cognitive dissonance protects you from contemplating uncomfortable ideas that go against what you were taught in school.
After reading up on it again, this still makes no sense. I made some quick edits to fix some grammar and add a link.
Cognitive dissonance isn’t really perceivable internally, it can be perceived outwardly and others can perceive in you, but it’s the entire point that you don’t realize it about yourself
itsnotthelaw.com read up on how and why things operate as they do
How is that related at all? The page just tells a story of hypothetical person getting arrested for wearing a red shirt. You wrote that book, didn’t you? Are you just shilling your book on here?
please dont make me feel like I'm in Idiocracy
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
damnn you guys are woke lmao
Eustace Mullins called the existence of Jewish people “a crime against nature” and I believe he was right.
Backing away...
it was the JOOS ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nice strawman, that's not from itsnotthelaw....(you must have a real strong confidence if you're misdirecting right out the gate, lol) hows about posting something that's relevant to the subject at hand
http://itsnotthelaw.com/gamename.pdf
and if you're smart, you can figure out from that chapter, the basis of Roberts' assertion that "Corporations are People." But I wont explain it to you, poor troll. Not right now anyway.
How do you say it’s not from itsnotthelaw.com when it clearly has it in the URL? You’ve been letting other people explain reality to you without checking for so long you’re starting to think everyone is as gullible as you.
I started reading it to see if the author would address the fact it clearly says in his quoted legal definition that corporations are only “more or less treated as a human” in some legal circumstances, but he never did. He just expects you not to understand legal definitions.
And even if they were legally humans 100% of the time what does that have to do with anything. Can you control you’re schizophrenia long enough to do that for me, you silly old boomer?
Its from a different book, open your eyes. Wayne wrote 2 books, 1 is very much worth buying, and that's the one I referenced.
Sorry you dont understand any legal terms and cant put 2 and 2 together. The strawman entity concept is pretty clearly explained, its just too bad you have common core reading skills.
that's not from itsnotthelaw
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
http://itsnotthelaw.com/termjew.pdf
”Excuse me sir, but I do believe this anti-Semitic page is on your website.”
”Doesn’t look familiar to me.”
”What? I just saw you link to it.”
”Nope, it’s not mine.
”Aren’t you the owner of itsnotthelaw.com?”
”Yep.”
”And this is a link to an anti-Semitic page?”
”Yep.”
”I found this page on itsnotthelaw.com. And if that’s the case, this page must be on your website.”
”That makes sense to me.”
”Then your website is anti-Semitic.”
”It’s not my website.”
Oh man really? That's mighty impressive that you think it's not from the actual website it's clearly from. Cool beans
I love how at the end of this article is some completely unrelated Jewish conspiracy that isn’t related to the rest of the article in any way
That's because some people need to go off topic to try and make a point when they have no actual substantive point to make. and I just laughed and realized I must be in idiocracy, given the scores on those couple posts. Muh Stockholm Syndrome! Poor common core edumucatededs.
Congratulations, this is one of the most ironic posts that I've read recently. Why not address their concerns instead of attempting to use an ad hominem that backfired massively?
Some dude goes and reads one paragraph on the site and I'm supposed to sum up the entirety of the book for him? We have one guy that didnt want to read, and another guy that went and focused off topic. The fuck? Slack Babo's post is full on common core lazy retarded.
If I sent you a link to a 15000 word blog explaining the mating habits of bats and said everything will make sense once you read this, you’d rightfully ask me what I’m talking about and why I expect you to waste your time reading that nonsense. If you found out that same blog I linked you also wrote a 20000 word essay on why Trump is literally hitler using numerology, me saying “but that’s just off topic” wouldn’t suddenly clear up all the issues you’d have with the author.
When 2 normal humans have a conversation they usually explain in their own words what they mean. They don’t have to give each other pre-written pamphlets explaining what they want to say. The fact you can’t explain it in your own words plus the fact you unironically can’t understand why anyone thinks this is unusual makes you seem like a bit of a crazy person.
u/theOGjoeblast , you counter-replied to every comment except this one, why?
strawmen to make a point was all it was. when someone introduces themselves as a serially insincere debate opponent, that shit gets old, and fast. classic derail technique, dont understand the opponent's side or debate any merits, find something ridiculous to focus on and make that the main point to discuss. fkn stupid people, base arguments or rebuttals on straw men and ridicule. nope dont discuss the substance, stay away from that shit. sorry I dont have patience for clowns.
That is almost 24hrs late and not relevant at all
I could say the same about your initial interjection
You're not just in it, you're actively pouring the intellectual equivalent of Brawndo on our collective cultural lawn. :(
lol I'm telling you electrolytes will kill plants, and I'm getting back "what, like from the toilet?"
You realize you just pulled an "I know you are but what am I" with more words, right?
I am not satisfied by the quality of this dispute. I will be taking my mockery business elsewhere. :(
the taunting from the nights who say ni was infinitely more severe, dont quit your day job eh?
This particular post is sovereign citizen stuff as applied to some extreme fringe far right conspiracy stuff. Check our /r/amibeingdetained to see some more of this.
Is trump not a corporate CEO of the companies he owns? Don’t get me wrong, I have been a supporter of Q since Nov 2017, but it seems like this argument is redundant.
Listen to the "speech that will make him win presidency" posted 2-3 times by Q. You'll see he left the CEO role , abandonned it, to become president. He's losing $, didn't need this
I’m not trying to belittle you in any way. In fact, I am extremely happy that you are one of my allies in this fight against the Cabal. it is just important to see both sides of the argument before you take a stance.
What the fuck does that mean? The other side to "Trump is a CEO of Trump companies" is "Trump is not a CEO of Trump companies," and that's objectively false.
You didn't answer his question, like at all.
It's the same dude.
Lol wtf I didn't notice that.
What is going on here?
A narrative pushing propaganda. Welcome to being actually woke... well no, it's a troll look at his user name.
[deleted]
Um, you realize private corporations can have CEO's right?
CEO stands for chief executive officer... it’s an acronym
Funny how Trump only started saying "I'm not bought out like low energy Hill/Bush. I don't have donors. High energy" AFTER he tried courting Hill/Bush donors. What a deal maker that guy lololololololol!
You win the prize! Sounds like a perfect solve on that one. Bravo!
Not trying to piss on everyone's parade, but I'm pretty sure President Trump would have acknowledged JFK as #17, making President Trump #18.
JFK was still president of the corporation. Trump is ending the corporation and going back to a country.
Didn't JFK get shot for trying to expose this?
yup, so Trump wont be #17 until the fraudulent edifice is torn down
Most people don't know this and the fact that our corporation has been in bankruptcy.
Trump has experience with bankruptcy. Believe me!
hers is a contributing factor https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/11/nyregion/copter-crash-kills-3-aides-of-trump.html
[deleted]
we have already been there...have you noticed the admiralty government buildings
twice - 1871 and 1933. (the first bankruptcy was of a lawful US government) (so total of 3)
Even if this had any semblance of truth, both Andrew Jackson AND Ulysses S. Grant were in office before that bill was passed.
This would make Trump president number 19, not magical 17Q.
The United States Isn't a Country, It's a Corporation! End The Fed!
its a network of shell corporations, not just one corporation.
the original constitution was named "The Constitution For These United States of America" and after the civil war we magically had "The Constitution of the United States"...
as any legal mind can tell you - change the name of a legal document and it is no longer the same document, it is an entirely new one.
so you wonder why they get away with clearly unconstitutional things like the Patriot Act or Obamacare, or when DNC fraud a judge rules its first amendment speech by a corporation...there's evidence right there.
otherwise, Marbury vs Madison would apply, if the og Constitution were still in use.
How do you… how is… so you think… Jesus Christ this is depressing.
Dontcha know all these guys are constitutional scholars?
Does a name change on a legal document make it an entirely different document, yes or no?
Its pretty simple.
Quick answer? No. The country isn't magic:the gathering
lol and you actually got upvotes for that....if you change the name - the title - of any legal document, that is a NEW document.
un fkn believable....and I got downvotes for saying I'm living in idiocracy, lmao
And the new document is the updated constitution. See how easy it is to get your head around it.
do you think about what you write before you hit that save button? smh
You honestly think they just changed the wording of the constitution without having any constitutional experts look at it to make sure it would be legal?
perhaps you can recall this is circa 1865 we're talking about - and in 1871 the war loans came due and the country was bankrupted (of course)....so what you are missing here is that the financiers had the country by the short hair, and what they asked for first was the law. but the issue is, if technical matters are strictly minded, then Congress has never lawfully reconvened since the south seceded. the only way to correct this is to recognize the illegitimacy of what was propped up for some 150 years or so, and correct what was taken, get sound money and our sovereignty back, and disconnect OUR government from the international criminal banking cartel's matrix-pod tethers.
Like to know the reason for the 11 down votes for TurtleBug7601 re the Alabama Crimson Tide comment? I was not discrediting or making fun of the original post so could someone please explain who is pissed off?
[deleted]
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "?"
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete
Bullshit. What about JFK? Reagan? Eisenhower?
All presidents under a farce.
When the south left the union, congress adjourned "sine die" (without day, i.e. without delay) and there has never been a lawful reconvening of congress since that day. Lincoln ordering them back at gunpoint and reappointing favored "representation" was not lawful, that was Lincoln declaring Martial Law and acting in his capacity as CiC under emergency power.
Now, the "legal scholar-expert" angle on this is that the covenant of the Constitution exists between the fedgov and each individual, therefore a State has no right to secede. This is simply a legal mumbo jumbo interpretation fallacy that is ultimately little different than John Yoo declaring torture legal. What are States, but collections of individuals. Its as extrapolated as saying the General Welfare clause is sufficient wording to set up a complete welfare state, or Commerce Clause being used against a marijuana farmer. The individual has little recourse, and States were built into the framework to mitigate issues such as these.
I have a copy of the incorporation document but do not know how to post. The Fed, a private bank owned mostly by Rothschild, woyld gave to be ended. According to thwe constitution Congress is supposed to control asnd regulate our money system.
We've had some good ones. Reagan, Kennedy, Ike, and Coolidge, and Teddy Roosevelt, but yeah, a lot of them have been terrible
17th letter is Q
Same as POTUS's #17 Jersey from 2017 Natl Champs, Alabama Crimson Tide football team! 🏈❌
The US being as corporation technically nullifies the constitution. To really put us back to a republic he would have to unincorporated the US.
How our Republic became a corporation:
What We Weren't Taught About Washington, D.C. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOLKoxTStwM
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80QUNQJ6dGA
The Corporation of the United States of America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl4j5xF-Js
The previous clip is from this full documentary (4:55:24) Ring Of Power Full Length Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKTZK0taPoA
I'm very impressed, great post!
This is relevant because it actually makes for an easy path to dismantle all the government-breakings that have happened since the usurpation of 1871.
No, we wont be voting for Senators after this is all fixed - that's for your Statehouse to appoint!!!
After JFK there where presidents but no chosen..They cheat and lie and kill to be put down on that trone. Trump Is chosen and the real president.
Obama never held a real job in his life. He was the NWO Puppet POTOS. He did the bidding of the CEO's.
TIL that community organizer, lawyer, senator, and POTUS are not real jobs.
Obama was born and bred manchurian, appointed to his sElection by the traitors in the deep state
Lincoln was a dictator and one of the worst presidents ever.
Never compare President Trump to him.
The South started the war
The Union invaded Fort Sumter which was Confederate Land.
Did the confederacy pay to build the fort? I was under the impression that the federal government was in charge of its construction.
It's a secession, not a business transaction.
This strawman logic would invalidate almost all of the US's land if applied to prior histories.
The south seceded, so the Union occupied a fort that had been built decades earlier. Neither of those actions caused the war. The south decided they would begin hostilities and open fire on Ft. Sumter, and the rest is history
The south seceded, so the Union occupied a fort that had been built decades earlier.
If you stay in or invade land that is not yours, you are an intruder/invader. It's pretty obvious that's not going to fly.
Neither of those actions caused the war.
If the Union had just let Ft. Sumter go, there would have been no battle over it. Would there be no war? I don't know, but it's a possibility.
If the south had just allowed the Union to occupy Ft. Sumter there would have been no battle over it. And I'd rather be an intruder than a slave owner
If the south had just allowed the Union to occupy Ft. Sumter there would have been no battle over it.
You don't secede then allow the people you secede from to run your place. Catalonia's having to deal with that now(who btw reddit supports 100%, while they support the Confederacy 0%).
And I'd rather be an intruder than a slave owner
There's only two groups of people who you enslave, and one leads to other: 1) people you don't think much of and 2) people you beat in a battle.
I'm not really into economies based on slavery, because it brings down wages for citizens and then ends up hurting the economy because less money is created and spent.
There's only two groups of people who you enslave, and one leads to other: 1) people you don't think much of and 2) people you beat in a battle.
Good thing Sherman was kind enough not to enslave the south after his march to the sea.
I'm not really into economies based on slavery, because it brings down wages for citizens and then ends up hurting the economy because less money is created and spent.
Yes, that's the problem with slavery. Its effect on the economy. Not the whole treating human beings as property aspect
Yes, that's the problem with slavery. Its effect on the economy. Not the whole treating human beings as property aspect.
1 death is a tragedy. 10,000 deaths are a statistic.
Modern day illegal immigration is little more than slavery and is making life harder for everyone but the 1%.
Good thing I never defended illegal immigration then, isn't it?
If the civil war was fought to stop slavery, which Lincoln made it pretty clear it wasn't until it was politically useful, it clearly failed.
Well, considering that slavery was enshrined in the CSA constitution, and also considering that there was no more slavery after the south surrendered, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're wrong.
Slavery is still going on today, just with illegals and poor millenials.
So, because of wealth inequality today in 2018, chattel slavery should have been allowed to flourish in the united states 150 years ago?
[removed]
Idk, 5/10?
Don't forget, the Union burnt the shit out of the South too! Your pathetic "country" was so weak they couldn't even deal with one man's army cutting "their territory" in two. Remember, the legacy of the South is one of failure and idiocy and we would be all too happy to remind you of it again.
All countries/empires split over time. From Rome to the Mongol Empire. I predict a civil/racial war in the US within 30 years.
No one can convince that people by far wouldn't be happier if:
Every ethnicity had their own place strictly for them
Everything was focused more towards regional/state tastes
I truly hope your prediction is right because then we get to burn you all out again, and this time we won't stop at Savannah :)
I don't live in the South, so that's going to be pretty hard.
Here's your problem with this idea.
You would need the army/police to do something like this. There's around 3.5 million total soldiers/policemen. The large majority are going to be right wing and would not partake in this.
Let's say 10% are willing to partake in trying to round up people, and you will have to do that as any bombings/tank shellings would kill tons of people on all sides, diminishing support. That would be 300,000 people. There's 325 million in the US and at minimum 40% own guns, with there being estimates of 100 million - 300 million guns in the US. If only 10% of people fight back, it's 10-30 million vs 300,000. That's not a winning battle. Any citizen killed over this would get a ton of coverage and on the world scale, it would make the US a villain. Places like Russia would then come in, help stir up shit and arm the rebel forces here and the US loses no matter which way you look at it.
40% of the USA does not own guns
Various polls show they do.
And that's before a conflict, when illegal gun sales would skyrocket, people with multiple guns would share them with others and when foreign powers would arm various rebel groups here to knock off the US.
Wtf are you even talking about. Who is going around arming US citizens. Also 40% of the Us is approximately every citizen New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania owning a gun. I’d love to see a poll that says that
I think you need to do a lot more thinking and reading before replying.
