The Systematic Dilution and Removal of Sovereignty - Personal and State

If ever there was an issue worth fighting for, it's the sovereignty of country, ourselves and our children. 

Sovereignty means "the right to self-determination." 

Sovereignty is a legal, moral and physical boundary - as clear as crossing a defined border into another country, or even a neighbor's fence. You leave one country or place of sovereignty and enter another. 

Here's the definition from Black's Law Dictionary

https://thelawdictionary.org/sovereignty/" title="SOVEREIGNTY">SOVEREIGNTY

"Self-determination is perhaps the most fundamental of all rights we possess under our Constitutional Framework and Bill of Rights. It is the cornerstone of Political Freedom - the right to freely move about, unrestricted and without permission so as to carry out our self-determined purpose in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."

This definition speaks volumes to "the purpose of being sovereign." 

The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness is determined by who? Yourself, as part of self-determination what you believe is your happiness. Sovereign people do this. 

Does that definition give you the right to encroach your will on another sovereign individual or their rights? Heck no. By strict definition, it limits "your actions" to only those which do not encroach on the economic, political and spiritual rights of another human being - providing actions of that being does not encroach on yours. This demarcation of sovereign rights is both inclusive and exclusive.   

Boy, have we screwed this lofty objective up. What's worse we handed over our personal sovereignty to the State. 

Any thinking observant man or woman can see that personal and state (as in 50 states) sovereignty around the globe is being systematically diluted and destroyed. The lines of sovereignty are becoming blurred, if not erased. Public Schools don't teach sovereignty or what it means to be sovereign. Why? 

What purpose does the removal of sovereignty serve? Let's find out using the past as a guide. 

Conquerors since time began have laid claim to certain lands, property (things of value) and even native people making them slaves of the conquering ruler. Loss of sovereignty was simply part of the spoils of war or tribal conflicts. One minute their lives "were under self-determination" and the next someone else controlled (determined) their freedoms and their very lives. 

Bottom line, they lost their sovereignty - willingly by submission, or unwillingly at the point of a sword or gun. Those unwilling to give up their sovereignty, lost their lives on the spot. "Submit or die" was the cry of the day. Most submitted, but some cried "freedom" over life on principle. Those that chose freedom and didn't submit were "put to the rack" or "put to the sword." 

Today, we still use the ultimate threat of military power to dominate populations into submission. If they don't submit, they could ultimately "find submission" through a rain of carpet bombs, or at the point of a laser guided weapon. The results are the same "submission by force."  

So let's look at the loss of sovereignty without force and from a national perspective. How about economic sanctions until you do what we say? How about move your border or else? 

Consider a different current example where people willingly "voted away" their sovereignty. The Economic Union was created November 1, 1993, in Maastricht, Netherlands. It was designed to blur the borders of several countries in Europe into a unified state called the EU. Unified so much so, that the new "sovereign state" of the EU could create it's own currency. 

Can you imagine creating your own currency? I guess you could, but in reality "you are not sovereign enough" to pay for things you want or need with whatever currency you created - unless of course those who took it from you had the confidence in its store and redemption of value. 

I can see it now: a paper currency note with the heading "The Free State of Jones" redeemable in silver, or gold, or sea shells or wheat - whatever the takers of said currency agreed would store value, and could as it has done throughout history, not be diluted over time. 

The commodity chosen most often as a redeemable commodity for currency is Gold. But, know this before you decide to launch a new currency. 

Every country who has attempted to introduce a gold backed currency in the last 50 years has been bombed into oblivion. Just ask Omar Gadhafi, or Sandam Husain how that turned out. Both expressed an interest in issuing (as a sovereign country) a gold backed currency. They has good reasons to repeat history, but their idea of a gold back currency flew in the face of the Cabal's idea of what currency is...fiat.   

Gold has several properties worth leveraging. One, it is hard to acquire (mine) and rare so the likelihood that dilution through overabundance of supply is very low. Two, gold does not tarnish, which is a good thing because a metal that tarnishes is less value than one which doesn't. 

Lastly and most important of all properties, history has shown it does not lose value over time. Gold has stored value of both paupers and kings for millenniums. It is "tradable money" by itself, or sitting alone in a war chest, vault, piggybank or pocket. 

(Bank of England - Owned and managed by the Rothschilds Cartel)

Sovereign Countries (formal or informal) for the last 3000 years issued gold and silver as currency, or redeemable paper currency, backed by gold or silver. Rational People would not accept paper as the same as gold if was not redeemable in gold or silver. 

Not so any more. Paper currencies are now fiat - meaning "we declare it to have value" even though it's intrinsic value is near zero. Let's face it "fiat currency" is paper and cannot be exchanged for gold or silver. That row after row of gold you see in the picture above will never be traded for paper. Ever.  

That is the plan. 

Are we as a nation still sovereign? Not hardly. We neither have gold or silver as our money and we gave the right over to a private central bank just like the Bank of England.  

What's worse is that you and I are dumb enough to trade our "real labor" for paper.  Think about it. Not gold or silver, but paper. In roman times, a day's labor was worth one silver denarius -about 1/10th of a ounce of silver.  

Feeling foolish yet?

How about sovereign?