THREAD: CCP vs US Military, on home soil.
1. I watched the Executive Orders and I watched the media panic. I watched the MSM lies and I watched the treason. I watched the fake Russia narrative. I watched the calls for impeachment. I watched a stolen election, in full view.
More from Spies Like Us
THREAD: Original Trusts
1. Just for a moment, ponder:
- Does anyone own humanity?
- Does anyone 'think' they own humanity?
- Can a corporation own you, or just control you?
- What are ancient Trusts and who owned them?
- Do ancient Trusts still hold any authority in society?
2. Trusts and Corporations have woven a form of control around the earth and we are just now realizing their influence on society.
Let's explore how this may have occurred.
The earliest Trusts were not legal entities as they are today; they were powerful ‘statements of claim’.
3. They were known as Express Trusts.
These Trust required very little formality and could even be enacted orally, as proclamations.
They were most-commonly used for property transfers.
https://t.co/0O3m2xvxjM
4. The first Express Trust was Unam Sanctam decreed in 1302.
With some egotistical distortions of biblical writing, this Trust effectively made Pope Boniface King of the World, believing that “every human creature” was now subject to the authority of the Pope (Item #9).
5. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated head-dress in the shape of a pine cone, with an elaborate crown at its base.
Note carefully, that it was the “growing body of canon law” (judges) that began to give the Pope his authority; both temporal (worldly) and spiritual.
1. Just for a moment, ponder:
- Does anyone own humanity?
- Does anyone 'think' they own humanity?
- Can a corporation own you, or just control you?
- What are ancient Trusts and who owned them?
- Do ancient Trusts still hold any authority in society?
2. Trusts and Corporations have woven a form of control around the earth and we are just now realizing their influence on society.
Let's explore how this may have occurred.
The earliest Trusts were not legal entities as they are today; they were powerful ‘statements of claim’.
3. They were known as Express Trusts.
These Trust required very little formality and could even be enacted orally, as proclamations.
They were most-commonly used for property transfers.
https://t.co/0O3m2xvxjM
4. The first Express Trust was Unam Sanctam decreed in 1302.
With some egotistical distortions of biblical writing, this Trust effectively made Pope Boniface King of the World, believing that “every human creature” was now subject to the authority of the Pope (Item #9).
5. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated head-dress in the shape of a pine cone, with an elaborate crown at its base.
Note carefully, that it was the “growing body of canon law” (judges) that began to give the Pope his authority; both temporal (worldly) and spiritual.
THREAD: Enemy Combatants
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that the C C P were involved influencing the outcome of the US 2020 election. The details are available to those who wish to look.
I cannot be convinced that the Military didn’t watch all of this, in real time.
2. I cannot be convinced that DNI Ratcliffe isn’t investigating this matter exactly as per the 2018 Executive Order on Foreign Interference in an election.
https://t.co/zsANAInmck
I cannot be convinced that Biden will ever get a security clearance, even as a visitor to the WH.
3. The eyes of the world are now on the US Military and the Supreme Court (SC).
People are talking of war, cyber-terr0rism, treas0n, Chynese Military troops in Canada and US Naval ships off the coast lines.
Remain calm.
A counter-insurgency must involve the nation's citizens.
4. The importance of US Military law and the role of the SC reminded of that intriguing (almost scripted) interview between Sen. Lindsay Graham and SC Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
[Link at end of thread].
5. Firstly, Graham invoked the heartstrings by reminding everyone of the 9/11 tragedy AND then got Kavanaugh to confirm that the US was still legally at war, due the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
More from Politics
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/