The Founders of our Republic Were Statesmen, Right?
When the US Constitution was written and adopted, the process was not unlike how politics is done today. There is a tendency for people to believe that somehow back in the ages of antiquity, in this case, the late 18th century, when the founders of the republic met to draft and adopt some sort of framework for what they intended to establish, it was a process driven by some sort of mythical pureness. It is assumed that these men were all above petty infighting and squabbles, and partisanship; that they were statesmen as we are told and that means they were somehow above all of that.
…giving the government the power to self-fund, coupled with the power to write all laws,… it is made near impossible for the sovereign-body of people to ever reign it in through the means given of the system itself. Having been given an exclusive charter to enact the laws of the land, they can dodge the will and consent of the governed… If challenged by the governed on any point in their agenda, all they need to do to maintain their intended course is enact and execute whatever law is necessary to charter a new one around the consent of the governed.
That idealized view is simply not the case. When they convened to start work on the framework that would finally emerge, they did not have a clear consensus view of what the final work would be. Many had some ideas, but they hardly all agreed on the fundamentals, much less the details. So, much like today, seriously compromised work resulted.
What all this means is that there was a lot of proposals which some loved and others hated, much deal making and compromise produced considerably less than what most anyone would consider ideal. To compensate for the shortcomings, flowery language was employed to soft-sell the flawed final drafts to those who were to approve it.
So, just like today, there was a significant amount of stupidity and outright corruption coded in the drafts, such that what emerged looked good on the surface, but it was nonetheless, very compromised. It was set up to create one crisis after another, which would eventually lead to pretty much the system we have today, IE hopelessly broken and corrupt.
Since then, the people of our nation have subsequently been programmed to look back into American history and see very little of that. However, we are unmistakenly beginning to see that corruption was there, and is still present in the constitutional system which created our current republic.
We will call these compromises which led to our current dysfunctional system, ‘poisonous seeds.’ Understand that at the time of the declaration of independence, there were some events shaping up in Europe which would come to influence the formation of the American system of governance. We are speaking of the establishment of the Illuminati and the enlightenment movements which sought to bring down all monarchies, abolish all religion, and all nation states, and eventually deliver them into the hands of a cabal of what are today called globalists. These are the ones who today shape the landscape of geopolitical events.
The evidence for this is the fact that although there was some who wanted George Washington, the hero of the American revolutionary war to be made king, they instead created an alternative system to what was customary, and what they knew. This is evidence that they were influenced by new and radical thinking from somewhere in Europe.
The war, the drafting, and subsequent adopting of the constitution which was the formation of the United States of America, also happened just prior to, and contemporaneously with the French Revolution, which was the first historic fulfillment of the stated aims of the globalists Illuminati and the Frankists groups of Europe. In the French Revolution, they toppled the French monarchy and set up a short lived Utopian system in-which they ruled the entire French population with an iron fist for 5 years from 1789 to 1794.
They massacred anyone who they deemed a threat in the name of ‘Public Safety’, and attempted to fight 5 wars on five fronts to sweep all European monarchies away. It ended badly for the revolutionaries as leftist schemes always do, with an impressive demonstration of the utility of the French Guillotine, but it also set the course for future forays into despotism. Much of the influence which inspired the French Revolution also found its way into our system with some who were setting up the United States of America, and the taint it left is quite evident today if we look for it.
Although not being apparently explicitly notorious nor popularly discussed, any poisonous seeds would seem insignificant, overshadowed by the greater balance which seems good, but they are nonetheless there and have now grown and yielded their fruit, which has poisoned the whole.
Although there are many, we will only elaborate on what we consider to be the two most important of these, which are the two sides of an insidious coin. These two ‘Poisonous Seeds’ would eventually give the institution the power to perpetuate its own existence to become despotic, expanding its power beyond what the people would ever approve or tolerate, and grow beyond any control of the owners of the nation.
For all the blather made by the founders of the republic about ‘…binding the mischief of men down with the chains of the constitution…’, they certainly left massive gaping holes in the accord.
What are these two ‘Poisonous Seeds’?
We find them in the 1st two clauses of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
1) Article 1, section 8, clause 1
— Congress shall have the power to lay tax to finance government operations…
2) Article 1, section 8, clause 2
— Congress shall have the power to borrow against the wealth of the nation…
There was a considerable use of the soft-sell employed, about limiting the power of government by way of the separation of powers; and representation; the consent of the governed… and so on, designed to give the adopters a warm fuzzy feeling of soundness and light. However, any serious rational analysis of such should conclude that this arrangement amounts to the same power as that of a monarchy, regardless of any and all other factors. The power to enact all laws, and the power to help themselves to all wealth created is no different than the authority given any monarch and amounts to a defacto dictatorship.
Let us understand that giving the government the power to self-fund, coupled with the power to write all laws, and considering the established rules set up in the accord for the process, it is made near impossible for the sovereign-body of people to ever reign it in through the means given of the system itself. Having been given an exclusive charter to enact the laws of the land, they can dodge the will and consent of the governed through the power of legislation, reinforced by court findings. If challenged by the governed on any point in their agenda, all they need to do to maintain their intended course is enact and execute whatever law is necessary to charter a new one around the consent of the governed.
Government is made up of government employees who’s individual view of the world is tiny in comparison to the whole. That fact is somewhat of a buffer against the establishment of corrupting powers as it is assumed that those elected to office by the people are not laden with evil intent or of a megalomaniacal agenda of their own; it is assumed that they are simply humble servants.
The problem is that humble servants can be manipulated by those with the means to buy the process, which means the corrupting influence has access to the self-funding system with the power to draft all laws. This is precisely at the heart of our hopeless situation today. The people, acting within the established system, having been left without the power to deny funding, and no power to abolish or preempt bad law are left with no recourse at all, but are simply at the mercy of those who can buy the levers of power and use them against any opposition.
It has created extremely corrupt incentives for government with regard to their fiduciary responsibility and the stewardship of our wealth. There is little compunction for restraint from spending the public’s wealth on whatever will benefit themselves at the expense of the nation as a whole. This arrangement has made the private government corporation and its benefactors, a heavy, unwanted and uninvited majority partner of every business, and a partaker in the wealth of every individual.
The unlimited power for the government to fund it’s own operation by means of appropriating the wealth produced by the nation, through arbitrary taxation or incurring unlimited debt upon the backs of the nation, collateralized beyond it’s entire worth, makes it a formidable self-sustaining power. There is no practical escape from this, with the exception of the sovereign-body throwing out the bad system and establishing a new one.
So what should they have done instead?
They should never have entertained, nor approved a self-funding government, but explicitly prohibited such and retained that power, in all possible forms, to the people. They should have understood that the people must always maintain the power of the purse. The power of the purse bestows the power to deny and abolish. With the power of the purse, a bad law or an entire government could be dissolved very simply.
Anyone who has engaged in commerce understands this. In a contract between any two or more parties where one employs the services of another, the commissioner of service, in this case, We The People, must maintain financial control over the actions of the commissioned; again, in this case the government. Instead what this accord has done is let the hirelings set their own wages on the books of their employer, then even appropriate and dispense again, his own wealth to his estate. No sane businessman, but only the naive would find this acceptable.
We will take this idea one step further as we go through our material and show that it is also imperative to retain the legislative power of law in the hands of the people as it has now been shown that this can not be entrusted to any body ostensibly representing the interests of the people. That is why the idea of a sovereign-body is so vitally important in taking back what is ours, and putting a bridle on the process of governance.
So what if it is flawed and it might fail? Something else will replace it, right?
So what is the point of showing the flaws in the founding document that created the United States of America, the US Constitution? Why not just leave it alone? Even if it is flawed, is it not better than other more autocratic and oppressive systems that we might have had instead? The simple answer is Yes!
However, we must proceed from a more useful point of view. There are more than one reasons to point out the flaws. Among them is that the politically endowed people of this nation, the Sovereign-Body, have forgotten their political heritage to become serfs on their own land as a result of what the accord established; while so many have also become fixated on the Constitution, seeing it as somehow able to provide some magical power to save us from that which it in-itself explicitly chartered. Such misguided thinking is irrational to say the least. That fixation must be broken in order for us to refocus our attention and entertain real solution.
Another is to point out that the US government is failing now. It is being slowly eroded and transformed to something less agreeable to the American people, headlong to full despotism. It will likely completely collapse sometime in our very near future, but that is not the end of it. Hegemonist globalist organizations are behind it’s demise now, and they will attempt to seize power in order to remake it to suit their purposes after it falls. It is easy to see why this would be a much worse situation than what we have now.
Simply, we need a new plan, and we can not afford to wait for the complete collapse of the old before creating a new system. Sovereignty Project is in the process of deconstructing the old system, which involves what is termed ‘post-mortem analysis’, analogous to a human autopsy to determine the cause of death.
In addition, we have at this time produced thesis solution and somewhat of an outline for how to proceed to the next generation of civil structure, which improves upon the old, maximizing personal liberty, enacting the real will of the politically endowed sovereign-body, while rendering our nation considerably less vulnerable to fifth column attacks and the wiles of evil groups.
Note: for more information about what sovereign(ty) means, see: