Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Former President Donald Trump has reacted to the "Twitter Files" by suggesting that a remedy might include the "termination" of at least a part of the U.S. Constitution.

https://americandigest.com/trump-suggests-termination-of-the-constitution-is-possible-following-the-twitter-files-release/?

Kevyn

Violates his oath to protect and defend the constitution, more scumbaggery.

Liberty Tree

When Biden starts defending the Constitution and fulfilling his duties under it come back with something.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

He never took an oath to "this Constitution for the United States of America" just like everyone else by congressional law. WTFU

EmilyD

Trump's statement says this:

"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the P**********l E******n Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW E******N?"

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination {meaning "ending the use of"} of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone False & F********t E******ns!"

And this statement means that many rules and regulations and articles - even those found in the Constitution - were broken - not used - terminated - during the 2020 e******n.

The media and the left are DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY twisting Trump's words to read that he wants to terminate the Constitution.

The reality of this is that Trump is trying to PROTECT our Constitution by pointing out (exposing - he's very good at that) how many rules, regulations and Constitutional Laws were broken with the 2020 e******n.

This is another desperate attempt by the left to cover up the fact that what Trump will do is expose the e******n f***d that occurred...and many other things the left is covering up.... if he is re-elected. And judging by their reaction to this response to Trump's statement, they are terrified - hysterical, almost - that he might just win and, what was it that Hillary said about Trump? .... Oh yes, Matt Lauer went off script and asked Hillary about her using an illegal, private email-server when she was secretary of state. Her response (after the interview backstage)...“If I lose, we all go down and that F*****t F_ _k will have us swinging from nooses! What the f_ _k is wrong with you i***ts?”

pegw

Trump indeed took an oath to defend the constitution when he was sworn in. Just search for it, its on the internet. Trump just disregarded his oath. Hey,
Trump is the man of 40,000 lies.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Those that should read this won't or will have no comprehension for its meaning and intent, Thanks

MidnightRider

Very good! To most, reading comprehension is a thing of the past unless it has for guys a girl with swinging boobies, women, I really don't know. However, you are spot on. That wasn't the worst of Hil's quotes but let her rest in peace and the new triple take the brunt of criticism. Her reaction to Bill when he suggested she not run "I'm not a f__cking quitter." No, she was just a drugged out (Od'd at least once on adrenochrome), Epileptic, alcoholic, schizophrenic who thought that she was owed something.

EmilyD

Yes! (and thank you! ☺️) ... remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJEMX_iuCXE

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

Take another course in English and reading comprehension. It’s obvious the last course you took failed you.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

You or no one else has ever been able to prove ANY president or elected official has ever taken an oath to the title of the USA Constitution repeating the title words "this Constitution for the United States of America". So STFU and WTFU.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

I’m not defending peg nor am I agreeing with her regarding Trump. I’m posting because you seem to be playing a game of semantics. We all knew what was meant. Agree with it or disagree.

https://youtu.be/SJmrlMFHgPA

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

You just made my point again. even Trump did Not swear an oath to the Preamble title of the organic USA Constitution. It was made law as the very First Act of Congress/Senate weeks before General Washington was sworn into office by a Head Mason on a Masonic Bible as POTUS in 1789. Washington had already taken the Masonic Blood oath as a Master Mason. This law stands to this date. All swear an oath that is Of the United States a document that doesn't exist anywhere in law or at law.
Remember, Washington never created an American Treaty or Doctrine of Conquest calming victory and all the spoils of war fought for by the American Patriots. he and the congress and Senate surrendered that responsibility to King George 3rd. He claimed his authority and capacities over the United States of America in his 1783 Treaty.
at this point the Americans lost the right to v**e during the founding years, lost the right to own their lands with free and clear title, lost the right to have their Rule of Law form that all 13 colonies agreed to and later lost the right to have private side banking, currency forms, commerce practices. All Americans remained as they were before the war as citizen subjects and debt s***es. This is not my conspiracy.
Remember, General Cornwallis told us what the beginning foundations would be for their Deep State operations min 1781.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

That’s a lot of information to digest and it’s going to take me some time, which is increasing in value each day with the holidays approaching. Thanks for sharing.

Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Cornwallis said 1781 https://christianobserver.net/judaized-christianity-front-for-new-world-order-sen-mccarth/

What Washington didn't do did not create a doctrine of conquest after Cornwallis’s surrender (1781) after hearing his statement for what now would become of America. This conquest document would have documented that a victorious nation (America) in war acquired sovereignty over the conquered nation (British Crown) and could exert its own legal and political jurisdiction chosen by its sovereign residents.
Note: The practice for creating a doctrine of conquest or treaty dates back at least to Roman law.

1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace aka Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Revolutionary War. The English game of snooker begins due to George Washington and the 3 Percenters/Paul Revere’s Raiders, Minute Men and other Colonist were absent/silent towards claiming the spoils of war they fought for.
This agreement was made without representation of George Washington and the American Patriots comprised the 3 Percenters, Paul Revere’s Raiders, Minute Men or any of the supporting Colonist that fought against King George III. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp
This Treaty was negotiated by Benjamin Franklin, a Englishman, 33rd degreed Mason, with titles of Esquire and Excellency for the King, and was also signed by other English Esquires, Adams, Jay, and Hartley as the King’s men of nobility.

For the Rule of Law choice lost, most important to me, I reference and old history book on The Common law for America as entitled 'Colonial Law, by Reinsch', he sums up what the Thirteen Colonies considered to be the final bases for all law in America or ever to be in America... "the colonies were so impressed with the idea of an overruling law of nature that the laws of God and so-called natural laws were regarded as the true laws, and all temporal legislation was considered to be binding only in so far as it was an expression of this natural law" Yes, back then there were some moral white hats. James Wilson, the foremost lawyer at the Constitutional Convention, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a man who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1789 and was well familiar with this legal principal stated above called Natural Law and stated; "Parliament may, unquestionably, be controlled by natural or revealed law, proceeding from divine authority". It seems the King as victor and the King's men overruled this with their man-made Laws of the Sea, Maritime, and Admiralty Law. https://www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/40766/paul-samuel-reinsch/english-common-law-in-the-early-american-colonies

1787 The Republic was never defined and its Republican form of government for the people to install in each and every state to operate under. Because the States people rule over the federal, If Artical IV Section 4 were completed all current politicians would lose their authority over us. We would determine what freedoms, liberties, permissions and privileges we are to have or not. We then rule as sovereign men and women.

1789 First Act of Congress changed the title wording of the Constitution as it is stated in the Constitution’s Preamble in context as “this Constitution for the United States of America” changed to “the Constitution of the United States”, done just before Washington was sworn in as POTUS changing the word for to of and omitting of America for purposes of taking the oath of office is at min an err to be remedied or an outright fraud in basic contract law. You cannot change words and omit others from the original contract. Meaning and intent are in question. Their law https://www.senate.gov/legislative/landmark-legislation/oath-act.htm#:~:text=On%20May%205%2C%201789%2C%20the%20Senate%20passed%20its,will%20support%20the%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States.%22 VS the Preamble Title of the USA Constitution >
WE THE PEOPLE Of The United States, In Order To Form A More Perfect Union, Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide For The Common Defense, Promote The General Welfare, And Secure The Blessings Of Liberty To Ourselves And Our Posterity, Do Ordain And Establish "this Constitution For The United States Of America".

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.
WE are the “creator” – the federal government is merely our “creature”. (Federalist No. 33 (6th para), A. Hamilton.)

The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence, to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into "districts of the United States." He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank, were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its money.

This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution.

The First Bank

The First Bank of the United States was not at all owned by the Congress but was privately controlled by the British Board of Trade stockholders. The Bank, if begun in France, would be called the First Bank of France. Do not let the terminology fool you into thinking that it was a Bank created by Congress. The ownership was foreign. The "foreigners," noted as Stockholders, were many Americans and therefore, foreigners to the international banking industry. Most of these foreign bankers came from England. Chief Justice John Marshal held the second highest shares in this bank. The documents I have, show that Marshall was considered a "foreign stockholder." He was foreign because the bank was a foreign concern operating within America. Marshall, being a United States citizen, was a foreign Stockholder.

The Tories were helpful in setting the stage for the inception of the Bank. The Tories were people controlled and working for the King. The King did not want the Rothschilds or the Lombards to take control of the first bank in the United States. The King wanted his bank of England to control the first bank. This setup went back to the Treaty of 1783 and emanated from that treaty and those created after that. Remember, the King George made himself the Arch-treasurer of the United States of America.

American History is an interesting story when explored, opposed to as a child being told Washington chopped down a cherry tree, and could not tell a lie. And Franklin said we had a Republic and flew a kite in an electrical storm.
And don't forget the big one, we won the war, our independence and captured our freedoms and liberties.

We may as well not have a Constitution and Declaration of Independance