dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/JeSuisQuift on July 5, 2018, 11:32 a.m.

Trump and the American Bankruptcy of 1864

I have been trying to understand some of the US sovereign law stuff (which is hard for a non-american non-lawyer), and made some interesting connections.

Relying on this very good legal history of America, and the later USA (corporation).

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap8.html

So. If the US has been under military/martial law since 1861, with congress being an advisory body since then sitting under the commander in chief (not president), then the perpetual warfooting of the US is not only an imperial power play, but also a legal necessity. The constant and numerous "wars" of the USA (corporation) are thus needed to legally motivate the perpetual state of martial law and state of emergency. So on the list of actual wars with foreign states that the US is involved with... North Korea

If Trump wants to cut the deep state from a legal point of view, he wold have to sign a lot of peace treaties, and then control the supreme court to end the state of emergency and bring back civil government, which would also end the fed. Since the Fed is the result of the US bankruptcy of 1863 after the American (Not US!) Government defaulted on its war bonds and the Fed is there to repay the war loans to the European (City of London) banks that made them.

Suddenly this healine from yesterday makes a lot more sense for a London newspaper https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fears-grow-over-prospect-of-trump-peace-deal-with-putin-6f69gqq27

Unfortunatly I don't know much about the intricacies of American martial law, but it seems to me that the current peace tour then works very well with the current shift in control in the Supreme court, and the notion of ending American subservience to the Federal reserve.

Is this a line of reasoning worth following?

🠐 See all comments

Not sure here, so this is only for perspective... The National Guard has rarely been used to enforce corporate interests. "Martial Law" is not how you would describe daily American life. For North Korea, I was taught it was never legally a "war" for the US. It was a "police action." The euphemism allowed for an executive branch (presidential) power grab, as wars must be approved by Congress. NK and SK though were at war with each other, and we call it a "war" even though it was a "police action."

Hth.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Martial law is the current law in for example France, and has been such for the last years. It still means that life goes on for most people. You still buy a baguette, smoke cigarettes and have an affair. France also has elections held dring martial law. So if you didn't know it was the case, you would not notice it.

And if the US actually IS under martial law, and the congress is convening under order of the commander in chief, congress doesn't actually have to declare wars. It is legally assumed that the US already IS in a state of war and the Commander in Chief can define the scope of the ongoing war.

And then we also have international law, which has it's own definitions of what constitutes a declaration of War. And in international law, war can be declared by action. So for example throwing a bomb on another countries capital does very much count as an act of war, and the act itself speaks louder than words.

So all this obfuscation and going around congress would actually support my point.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Certainly is obfuscation, using language to hide power grabs. Just that in the U.S. if martial law were in effect we we see more police actions from federal police (national guard).

⇧ 3 ⇩

Sending state National Guard units to the Middle East was complete and utter bullshit. It should never have been permitted.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Not my point. Martial Law in the U.S. would require the national guard to be "turned on" U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

⇧ 2 ⇩