I have to wonder - if guys like this are exposing so much "truth" and the government is so evil, why does the government let it continue? Surely they have the power to make sure this guy never even existed if there was such a long-running conspiracy from all of those who have held power since the 14th Amendment was ratified (or not as this guy claims).
Why is it that no one else is doing anything about it if all this is true? I don't mean current politicians, but there are literally millions of people who would jump all over this sort of thing if it made any sense at all.
Does it not make more sense that he is taking bits and pieces of this and that and throwing them together in a vaguely logical manner, but that all the pieces he shows (not in a very good manner, btw, as Alzhino says) don't mean what he says?
I'm not saying that some of the things that this guy says isn't right, but the truth is, he goes through whatever "proofs" he has so fast, mixing it with his personal viewpoints about why we should be listening to him, that it doesn't make much sense.
I lose him pretty big when he says the 14th amendment shouldn't be there and that whether or not it was ratified doesn't even make any difference. That is actually one of the points of the Constitution - to provide a manner to make changes to the Constitution itself.
The 14th Amendment was created to better define citizenship after the Civil War. The original Constitution, for example, denied slaves and their descendants from ever being citizens.
The guy says the 14 th Amendment was never ratified. Why? He sure didn't explain that at all. That's a pretty freaking big claim!
This guy starts talking to his "opponents" in his senatorial race in the middle of his "explanation" to come challenge him, goes all over the place on his points, can't explain anything at all, just rushing through whatever "proofs" he has.
Have you guys ever heard of Occam's Razor?
"When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."
To paraphrase, when confronted with two competing hypothesis, chose the simpler one that also covers all the points the hypotheses are trying to explain is likely the correct hypothesis.
To me, comparing something like "the politicians of the country are not taking care of business and we are suffering for it" next to "politicians more than 100 years ago hijacked the Constitution illegally and there has been a conspiracy ever since to keep the American populace under lock and key and we are suffering for it" - well, Occam's Razor tells me that the first hypothesis is valid, not the second.
Of course, really, Occam's Razor can't be used for this because of the phrase "when equal in all other respects." This guy's stuff actually has nothing to back it up when it's all put together, quite unlike the hypothesis #1 as to why the American people may be suffering.
BTW - I'm actually a government plant who is spreading misinformation to continue to keep conspiracies like this one secret.
