How grand of them to give us back our right to use the herb cannabis, they usurped eighty years ago, on October 2, 1937, House Bill 6385: The Marihuana Tax Act. Yet a large group of politicians still voted against it. Only 5 Republicans voted for it and 6 Democrats voted against the bill to decriminalize a naturally occurring herb that people have utilized for thousands of years, coincidentally during a period when many Marxists were, just so happened to be, infiltrating our government. Sadly, some are saying, it is “unlikely” to pass the Senate.
Think of our Constitution as our foundational rule of law, yet we have allowed it to be “unlawfully” abrogated to such a very high degree that many are making a strong case that we are no longer a lawfully constituted Republic. If true, is there a way to restore our society?
Are there viable solutions, has been the long-standing question and it appears playing in the arenas they control, the courts and legislatures, have been extremely futile. They surely are not going to ask somebody like me to be the Secretary of the Treasury, that’s reserved for the wealthy banking and investment interests. They obviously need the revenue or they wouldn’t be reinstating this right.
- Qualified Immunity is one of the major problems. Even when a government employee or official usurps somebody’s rights, they have commandeered the Courts and they most often eliminate any liability. Even Big Pharma is exempted from liability through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that has already paid out over $4.4 billion, so far, in claims. Most people don’t know about this, so they would not even know to make a claim.
The Constitution clearly states, that those that break their Oaths to support, protect and defend the Constitution, “shall Not Hold Office” and many in both major political Parties, more like gangs today, are complicit. Many people such as the group who voted against reinstating the above right, are actually complicit in destroying the very Constitution they have taken an oath to uphold. This is by definition an insurrection. When two or more people are involved in an insurrection, it is “treason”. We The People and our government have literally been overthrown from within, by the two most powerful political gangs and they are both highly violent and corrupt.
- The Constitution says they shall not hold office and,
- It says that any monetary claim to Congress to put down an insurrection, if successful, shall not be challenged.
So the provisions of restoring our constituted provisions are4 in the Constitution itself. We just need a large enough group to restore it.
In the below link, Andrew Colesanti, a founding member of the Counter-Insurgency Studies and Observation Group (COINSOG) makes the case that Biden and Harris by virtue of them campaigning to “legislatively” void the 2nd Amendment, for the right to bear arms, have thus broken their Oaths and thus should not have placed themselves on the ballot for the election. The Constitution gives us two lawful methods of amending the Constitution and both Biden and Harris have not advocated these methods and instead, have and are still attempted to unlawfully subvert the Constitution and its intent to protect the rights of the Citizens through unlawful legislative means. https://therightofchoice.wordpress.com/?p=158
Can you imagine a large group of COINSOG Citizens arresting Biden and Harris for insurrection and treason and putting them on trial? Right now, there are not enough members and obviously, security and privacy are of great importance to both the usurpers and we the people if we partake in such civil actions. Or we can maintain the status quo that appears to be taking us down a potentially violent path of incoherent civil unrest.
2. The Right of Choice; the website to the above link is about creating a substitute tax return that allows the individual taxpayers to choose which government programs they want or do not want to pay for with their taxes. With over 120 different taxes and regulatory fees, the government surely has plenty of discretionary money to pay for the less popular programs. If the IRS denies the use of the substitute returns, which is likely, the taxpayers, simply removes that section from their return and refiles it to meet their perceived income tax obligations. If they deny the substitute returns, this of course provides the Citizens a very interesting legal and constitutional challenge through the courts. The publicity alone would be worth the effort and a much easier sell to the average American to join in the movement. Seeing who pushes back and their arguments against such an initiative will surely be enlightening.