Saving the US Republic

[Bill Ryan]

Dear Friends, I figured this definitely deserved its own thread. This is an SGAnon interview with Dr. Sandy Miarecki, who I confess I'd never heard of before. But — trust me — this is a VERY VERY remarkable woman.

Listen to the first 10 minutes and you'll see. Guaranteed.

It may be related to some of the material that Derek Johnson has been discussing (see this thread), but I did feel this was a topic of its own, dating back 150 years to 1871.

https://rumble.com/v56q4qj-7122024-sg-sits-down-w-usaf-ret.-lt-col-dr.-sandy-miarecki-to-discuss-the-r.html

SG Sits Down w/ USAF Lt Col (Ret) Dr. Sandy Miarecki to Discuss the Reinhabited Republic For These United States

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v54dw1v

[Bill Ryan]

The websites:

• https://RepublicForTheUnitedStatesOfAmerica.org

• https://Members.RepublicForTheUnitedStatesOfAmerica.org

[Denise/Dizi]

Definately worth a weekend of watching, reading, and examining at length, to see if this is true. There has been rumblings of a turn over of the seats of power over the past decade... And it was never made clear if it was one country or the planet in it's entirety.

It makes a lot more sense why immigration (unabated, and in fact, being perpetuated) is happening now, why there is so much chaos happening, as those in seats of power try to make things far more difficult for those that are living in places that were hijacked a very long time ago... and try to change it

If indeed this has gone as far as it is claimed here that it has...

I know what I will be doing next weekend now... Thanks Bill!

[TrumanCash]

Thank you so much for starting this thread, Bill. We need solutions now and restoring the Republic (not the so-called "democracy", which is an illusion) is the best and most likely the only real solution we have at this time and place.

I am so tired of people referring to the "government" as a "democracy". Surprisingly, many of the so-called patriot celebrities and politicians use still use this word repeatedly and only rarely do they use the word "Republic".

I would ask them to read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for These United States, which states in pertinent part: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

So what is the definition of a "Republican Form of Governent" (since it has nothing to do with the Republican Party.) According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (you have to look up "Government" first and the last entry is: "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people [not "persons", btw] and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."

So it appears that we have a choice--exercise our sovereignty directly or through elected representatives. if We the People choose to exercise our powers directly it would mean that we could make a "citizens arrest", right? But if we choose to exercise our sovereignty by choosing "representatives" does this definition imply we would then have given up our sovereignty? And what does the word "specially" mean in this context?

However it may be construed, wouldn't it be prudent to withdraw one's voter "registration" in order to assure that one has preserved and retained their personal sovereignty? In fact, I am one of many who have done just that and more.

I have taken constitutional issues into court and the prosecutors and judges (i.e., Bar Association Members) had no intention to acknowledge my sovereignty even though I had not harmed anyone. In fact, they had no intention to follow constitutional mandates. More on that later.

In the words of the Honorable Alfred E. Neuman: "America is that land which fought for freedom, then passed laws to get rid of it."

[meeradas]

Awesome.

Watched the whole of it. This is huge... and it is going to have global impact.

[ExomatrixTV]

• reinhabitedrepublic.com

• rumble.com/search/all?q=Dr. Sandy Miarecki
• rumble.com/search/all?q=Jean Hertler
• rumble.com/search/all?q=David Hertler

The future is in the hands of the people, not the corporate government. Learn how to re-inhabit the Republic of The United States for America and continue our constitutional government, not the corporate government.

• PDF

• It's Happening: The Re-inhabited Republic -- Col. Dr. Sandra Miarecki:

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v53rlwl/?pub=ir01b

[ExomatrixTV]

• The Myth Of American Democracy | A Republic If You Can Keep It:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rGkAXOOyKfw

• A Republic, If You Can Keep it: The First Printing of the U.S. Constitution:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wMsdmYjTI48

On the night of 16 September 1787, after 4 months of heated deliberation, the delegates to Constitutional Convention had set in print the very first copies of The United States Constitution. Without this magnificent document, created by key historical figures including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin, the United States as we know it simply wouldn’t exist. This is one of only eleven surviving copies and one of just two not in an institutional collection.

• IF YOU CAN KEEP IT - a A Mini Documentary on American's Ignorance of Their Political History:

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v56l5tl/?pub=ir01b

[Chuck]

Wow!!

A lot of new, ground breaking information here!! A must watch. Thanks Bill!

[shaberon]

Posted by TrumanCash (here)
I would ask them to read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for These United States, which states in pertinent part: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

So what is the definition of a "Republican Form of Governent" (since it has nothing to do with the Republican Party.)

It is specifically meaningless.

The most profound extent would be "to prevent monarchy".

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (you have to look up "Government" first and the last entry is: "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people [not "persons", btw] and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."

Black's Law Dictionary has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

So it appears that we have a choice--exercise our sovereignty directly or through elected representatives. if We the People choose to exercise our powers directly it would mean that we could make a "citizens arrest", right? But if we choose to exercise our sovereignty by choosing "representatives" does this definition imply we would then have given up our sovereignty?

You have no sovereignty.

I can smell this.

It needs to be said that the 1871 legislation has created a local government for Washington, D. C.; it's a corporation. All municipalities are corporations.

The Federal Government is a Sovereign. The States are Sovereigns. Those are the only ones.

You do have a ca. 1871 judge's ruling that a "corporation" has the legal status of a "person". It is a bit insulting because the original Amendment was intended to overcome the prior understanding that a slave was 3/5 of a person. They actually believed this. The Amendment was supposed to protect former slaves from still being in a lower legal status--and, as far as I know, it was used for this defense *one* time.

That kind of privilege handed to the corporate power is perhaps your second problem.

Curiously, it is the Articles of Confederation that say they are permanent--the Constitution does not attempt to do this.

As usual, this sounds like what is behind the free legal advice:

At this time the Republic for the United States of America can only achieve its goals with the assistance of generous donations from the Americans that make up the body politic.

Did you know that we have a hereditary noble-esque order?

It's called Sons and Daughters of the Revolution.

I don't qualify because my ancestor served in a State Militia. The point of saying this is because it means my heritage is in the Revolution. That may not mean the same thing for others, but, in some cases it means the issues and discussions are passed down. And so my reaction would be that the plan offered is a Federal Empire of the highest rank.

Are they legitimately complaining against what you might call an "International Trans-Atlantic Empire", yes, of course.

But, let me try to explain why this is a hoax and why you are not a sovereign.

It's called the Revolutionary Oath.

What that means is, you swear to fight for us, or we throw you out.

When I started looking into this stuff, it took a while to percolate to my attention, but it means they are rejecting the Oath. It is hard to be less sovereign than to obey my command to go out where people are shooting at you. This is in opposition to the Crown. We didn't spill all this blood so that people would go around thinking they are personally independent. You have to be ready to be summoned at all times.

This lady has an interesting Linkedin:

Fighting against military tyranny
Self-employed
Sep 2022 - Present 2 years

Multiple lawsuits and other legal actions against the Department of Defense, the US Air Force, the US Air Force Academy, for illegal mandates and coercion in violation of the Nuremberg Code

First impression is that is a Confession of a Frivolous Lawsuit Filer. An individual can't just go around trying to cite Nuremberg at someone. Or if you put "Air Force" as a defendant. You will be dismissed without further review.

Now, sure, if you actually *can* make a civil or criminal case, then go for it. However, any political point being raised along the way is most likely a modernized John Birch and if so I will dispute it.

[s7e6e]

Thanks Ryan. Australia is in the same boat.

[jaybee]

.

I've watched the OP presentation and trying to assimilate what this means - re the BIG picture...

I've been having the thought come in just lately that maybe the British didn't actually, or fully, succumb to the Revolution.. lose the American War for Independence - like how it is suspected that Hitler and Co. and the Nazis didn't actually, or fully, lose WW2 - just made a strategic withdrawal - dispersed .... regrouped and changed tactics...?

In other words are the British based Elite / aristocracy / globalists still basically in control of the USA..? still running the show...and have been for the last 100 + years....

Perhaps the info shared in the OP by Dr. Sandy Miarecki explains how they (the British and some other European Elites?) managed to eventually thwart the Revolution - and take back the most valuable piece of Real Estate the world has ever known..... by creating the State Corporations that usurped the Republic - this took them around 100 years to get done.... (1776 to approx 1871)..... it was all done so craftily most people had no idea and only now - after around another 100 + years is the next prolonged 'battle' in the War for Independence kicking off.... behind the scenes and without the muskets and rifles... < (for now anyway) ....

just having a little speculate.....

[TrumanCash]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by TrumanCash (here)
I would ask them to read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for These United States, which states in pertinent part: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

So what is the definition of a "Republican Form of Governent" (since it has nothing to do with the Republican Party.)

It is specifically meaningless.

The most profound extent would be "to prevent monarchy".

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (you have to look up "Government" first and the last entry is: "Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people [not "persons", btw] and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."

Black's Law Dictionary has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

So it appears that we have a choice--exercise our sovereignty directly or through elected representatives. if We the People choose to exercise our powers directly it would mean that we could make a "citizens arrest", right? But if we choose to exercise our sovereignty by choosing "representatives" does this definition imply we would then have given up our sovereignty?

You have no sovereignty.

I can smell this.

It needs to be said that the 1871 legislation has created a local government for Washington, D. C.; it's a corporation. All municipalities are corporations.

The Federal Government is a Sovereign. The States are Sovereigns. Those are the only ones.

You do have a ca. 1871 judge's ruling that a "corporation" has the legal status of a "person". It is a bit insulting because the original Amendment was intended to overcome the prior understanding that a slave was 3/5 of a person. They actually believed this. The Amendment was supposed to protect former slaves from still being in a lower legal status--and, as far as I know, it was used for this defense *one* time.

That kind of privilege handed to the corporate power is perhaps your second problem.

Curiously, it is the Articles of Confederation that say they are permanent--the Constitution does not attempt to do this.

As usual, this sounds like what is behind the free legal advice:

At this time the Republic for the United States of America can only achieve its goals with the assistance of generous donations from the Americans that make up the body politic.

Did you know that we have a hereditary noble-esque order?

It's called Sons and Daughters of the Revolution.

I don't qualify because my ancestor served in a State Militia. The point of saying this is because it means my heritage is in the Revolution. That may not mean the same thing for others, but, in some cases it means the issues and discussions are passed down. And so my reaction would be that the plan offered is a Federal Empire of the highest rank.

Are they legitimately complaining against what you might call an "International Trans-Atlantic Empire", yes, of course.

But, let me try to explain why this is a hoax and why you are not a sovereign.

It's called the Revolutionary Oath.

What that means is, you swear to fight for us, or we throw you out.

When I started looking into this stuff, it took a while to percolate to my attention, but it means they are rejecting the Oath. It is hard to be less sovereign than to obey my command to go out where people are shooting at you. This is in opposition to the Crown. We didn't spill all this blood so that people would go around thinking they are personally independent. You have to be ready to be summoned at all times.

This lady has an interesting Linkedin:

Fighting against military tyranny
Self-employed
Sep 2022 - Present 2 years

Multiple lawsuits and other legal actions against the Department of Defense, the US Air Force, the US Air Force Academy, for illegal mandates and coercion in violation of the Nuremberg Code

First impression is that is a Confession of a Frivolous Lawsuit Filer. An individual can't just go around trying to cite Nuremberg at someone. Or if you put "Air Force" as a defendant. You will be dismissed without further review.

Now, sure, if you actually *can* make a civil or criminal case, then go for it. However, any political point being raised along the way is most likely a modernized John Birch and if so I will dispute it.

It appears to me that you do not understand what "sovereignty" is. My sovereignty is not defined by the Constitution, recognized Law Dictionaries or anything else. Sovereignty is a viewpoint. It is a spiritual viewpoint. By spiritual, I do not mean it in the context of any Earth religion. It goes way beyond the Matrix in which we live. What happens to my body is irrelevant. I do not comply with the Matrix and I do not live in fear of it like the dumbed-down masses. I do not consent to the corrupt "legal" system or the insane mandates of Earth humans or any other beings. I know who I am as a spiritual being.

When I quote the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Black's Law Dictionary it is for the benefit of the dumbed-down normies as a place to start to gradually evolve out of their subservient victim viewpoint. They are not ready to understand the big picture because they have been programmed and they have blindly and obediently accepted their programming. They are stuck in "beliefs" and their "beliefs" prevent them from becoming truth seekers. Read my books then get back to me on this because you obviously don't know me and you do not know what I know.

[mountain_jim]

Anons, Q operation, Trump, The Storm, US Military all referenced by SG (the interviewer) at about 22 minutes in.

What you have described is a process post-9/11/2001 discussed as having come out of high-level military command (retired and active) to revert the US back to a lawful republic and away from a corporate maritime fiction. Essentially, we have accomplished most of the mechanics of that process.

She said "100% correct".



Earlier she mentioned this getting moving after the JFK op, I suspect this was part of what were referred to as white hats by earlier whistleblowers before the Trump/Q years.

31 minutes in - when the corporation falls, the military says 'Republic you are up' - we are up - we are the civil authority the military absolutely requires to not violate their oath of office

"Let's reinhabit the rest of republic as the US corporation is rapidly running out of time."

Intel She in contact with a few insiders - mostly getting financial side. Apparently last week, Republic Trust got funding (indirectly)

Other recent intel: mostly National Guard will be the military conducting tribunals under Marshall Law because so much of regular military is compromised at highest levels

SG Question: How should American patriots honor the spirit of forefathers?

We all need to wake up to the fact that this is the We The People Government - where every single American gets involved with their government to

13th amendment unlawfully deleted from Constitution

/////////

I would think that Patel Patriot's Devolution is related as part of this process and the Q op was part of the background awakening process required to enlist support and understanding for citizens to react and go forward non-violently.

Perhaps not all from a single 'organizing collective' (as Clif would call it), but several efforts with the same goal in mind.