Our Lawful And Peaceful Revolution - Defense & Enforcement of the Constitution.

TJ was objecting to the abridging of the purpose of free speech in his own way. The Torys controlled the newspapers and perverted the society with them. He wrote extensively on this subject, but that is one of his most plain statements.

 

why? i don't mind going to clubs called Stocks and Blondes, and discussing straddling options with really hot chics who come up to me nude and ask me if i want my turn.

 

Sounds like the commerce clause works.

 

yes, it is what the private sector is good for; if i wanted more drama i would do it in the public sector.

 

I believe the most important problem the framers wanted to avoid was creating an oppressive government. I believe the 1st and 2nd amendments were added to the constitution specifically to enable we the people to overthrow the government the framers created should it ever become the oppressive government they sought to avoid. So yes however I thought I already made that clear.

Again I thought I already made it clear that I do although I wouldn't choose to use your language.

You've lost me here, I don't understand why fellow citizens wouldn't understand.

Again, you've lost me. I don't feel my freedom of speech has been abridged. In fact due to advances in technology I can communicate even more freely now than I could a mere 20 years ago.

I believe it would be destructive to the constitution because nefarious people would take liberties with the interpretation of your language. In your language you explain that congress must essentially protect freedom of speech. That's an open door, you aren't limiting what congress can do rather you are telling congress they must do something and that will in fact be interpreted as taking any and all necessary actions to achieve the goal. Ultimately free speech would be restricted in the name of preserving freedom of speech.

 

Those uses for those rights seem implied, but the right to alter or abolish is outright stated. Violence is not.

Article V is outright stated and there is full implication that when 3/4 of the states are ratifying, congress is powerless. The Articles of confederation and states powers have their way.

One thing is for damn sure. A unified armed people are for more likely able to deal with an oppressive government. Currently 2nd amendment rights advocates basically advocate getting picked off one by one by the DHS, who is well armed to do just that.

Well, that is what this discussion is about. Coming up with language that is the best to see the PURPOSE of free speech to manifest.

So what language would you use? You don't even have to revise the 1st amendment. Maybe you can think of another way. There are lots of Americans that believe it is a sacred cow, but they've never had anything important that they REALLY needed to share with a million people either.

Firstly, Americans need icons telling them what to think. If the info is not delivered by an easily recognized icon, it very likely will not even be remembered, let alone understood. Secondly, Americans have no way whatsoever to develop informed opinion across their masses. This is fatal to democracy and a lot more. Thirdly, there is a massive cognitive infiltration that has been going on since 9/11 and before. But massive afterwards.

Consider this; Both "We Are Change" chapters in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara where I am were headed by the children of MI6 British intelligence. FACT Web forums are not only inundated with covert agents, some forums are run by intelligence agencies. The covert society is so prolific it makes the forums look like busy places. They receive promotion from big $ and other segments of society.

When was the last time you had federal judges concealing the treason you were trying to disclose under law?

My disclosure of treason pursuant to title 18, a simple "in regard" with the criminal clerk in the miscellaneous file was re filed as a civil suit against the parties concealing treason, WITHOUT my authority so it could be discarded when I did not pay filing fees.

The face page refiled.

You can see here that the 38 pages of evidence was removed, perhaps.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/cm10-00040face2-18-10.jpg

Like you could not describe how my proposal is destructive to the core of the constitution, you cannot show how "liberties" within the intent of the language of this can be used to restrict freedom of speech.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution​

 

The draft revision of the first amendment does more than restore the purpose of free speech, it also covers two other glaring deficiencies of the constitution which is law.

It restates within law, unalienable rights, and the right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. It does this as a function of the PURPOSE of free speech.

Our unalienable rights are only stated in the Declaration of Independence, not law, and the 14th amendment which almost reverses itself creating circularity by taking sovereignty from states which is defined through Article V and the 10th amendment.

 

It appears Leftquake is not going to be accountable to these facts. How abnormal and illogical is this?

I mean is the bulk of political discussion here only whining, sniveling and complaining? When a new perspective breaking out of the dysfunction of the partisan political box is presented, one would logically expect some recognition or understanding then acceptance of it.

Maybe we are far more socially controlled than we think we are.

 

OP, you need either a girlfriend or a hobby.

 

I would want these in a new constitution:

1. A fundamental right to citizens of a comfortable simple domicile, food, clean water, education K through 12 suitable for the gaining of employment with government funded continuous employment education if new skills are needed, a right to employment unless deemed unable to work, medical care and a sufficient amount of recreation.

2. Disabled rights to government support cradle to grave if not employed.

3. Redo the First Amendment to ban hateful speech, keep freedom of religion but only as a right to spiritual identity and to organize not to in other areas offend society (no indoctrination of children, preaching in public if hateful, they couldn't refuse to do legal marriages etc. but affirm tax exempt status as long as they go along with the society), maintain freedom of the press and to peacefully assemble.

4. The second amendment would amend to remove the right to private weapons but defer this to the Federal Government if they wish to allow some access.

5. Equality across the board including gender identity and sexual preferences.

6. Limit the military to the role of defense, banning foreign deployments in force without a declaration of war and I mean an open vote for war leaving options for peaceful deployments for humanitarian missions and to protect the immediate lives of citizens for no longer than a 60 day deployment without a declaration of war.

7. I would also limit rights in the Constitution to citizens either natural born or naturalized and ban granting this without application at eighteen to those born here without both parents being legal citizens.

Those would be a good start.

 

It's quite clear you know very little about needs, or women.

 

Wow, a serious post, albeit fanciful and rooted in socialism like 1., which is far too much of a conglomeration to be realistic.

We really do not need a new constitution. You invite massive rejection for even considering it!

Mixing the basics of unalienable rights, such as the perpetual availability of naturally quality water as opposed to widely polluted water with assured housing won't work. Such a guarantee is too far from our original structure to be acceptable.
Consider a specific limit on government dumbing down people that have worked hard to be functionally educated. This would intertwine with a return of the original 13th amendment.

However, if people are so dysfunctional they cannot provide for the most basic needs within our society, a safety net prevents serious social problems. Such is what we've got, although the federal government has been working

Charity as in 2. Is really not the realm of a republic type government such as ours. If it were not so infiltrated e and corrupt we, the people would be much more capable of such charity.

With 3., I can only refer you to this post;

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=412857&p=1065098474#post1065098474

continuing the proposal of the OP related to ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech. It has a proposed draft REVISION of the first amendment there which has THE PEOPLE doing what is needed.

Relating to 4., the 2nd amendment can be left as it is. Open to interpretation according to our needs.
I will point out that you've not posted a SINGLE WORD about justice!

WTF is the matter with you?

Can you not realize that IF there were justice, THEN there would be effective mental health care.

Have you not seen my pages on the continuous deprivation of due process and law imposed upon me and you in order to prevent effective mental health care?

http://algoxy.com/law

Realize that law enforcement, courts and psychology basically have the same job. Currently the NWO has them sequestered in order to maintain their secrecy and control.

The point of 5. Is lost in a psychologically un manipulated and healthy society which justice promotes.

The one GREAT phrase I've learned from web forums IS

Justice is a social expression of love.

With 6., we can simply refer to the constitution as it is and the restoration of justice under it.

The point of 7. Is also fairly well covered by the existing constitution and laws. The problem is enforcement and our lawful and peaceful revolution is all about that.

 

As you can see, the existing constitution, enforced, can go a long way towards manifesting the principles you set forth.

You must be aware that a constitutional re write is widely opposed within partisan politics. I think I've shown that enforcement of the 1787 constitution can bring about much of what you would like to see. The truth over time will cause people to make the right changes, in themselves and government.

But we cannot get the truth.

As soon as it is spoken the infiltration of the government has covert agents there trying to get rid of it. One calls the messenger a nut case, the next posts misinformation, the last pretends to be objective by pointing out the obvious misinfo, then continues with faux reasoning to indirectly support the truth while linking to a heavily funded website dedicated to an ineffective half truth.

This is why the first thing we need are ways to manifest the PURPOSE of free speech so people can work together on their own education using reason.

 

It's become apparent that Americans, even ones versed in constitutional law, do not know how we are to use the 9th amendment.

The key word in that is. "WE". We implies unity. " We the people", means something like a majority. However, it might not take a lite real measured majority. Simply a very large group of people, obviously getting larger every day, IN AGREEMENT, constitute a "WE".

If "we", decide that the framers intended for us to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, and that they intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling our unity needed to do it, and we claim the right under the 9th amendment; while this group is getting larger every day. "We" will get our way.

When "we" decide that "we" need to prepare for Article V (a very wise decision) and that such preparation is a right (logical and reasonable) WHO is going to argue with us?

Really, how bad will they look doing that under those conditions?

The strategy of this thread is all about us becoming a "WE" and empowering an agreement "from sea to shining sea" that takes control of our federal government through our states.

First we have to agree, widely, then impose that agreement lawfully upon our states, then things will happen.

Law enforcement and the military completely support this, and they don't even know it yet, but I do. I've seen the signs. They will love it. But, "we" must take the lead.

 

ChristopherABrown...… would you say that the Worgl, Austria local currency experiment.... and especially its replication in one thousand American communities is a good example of the type of lawful and peaceful revolution that you personally feel must take place?

http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=717

City in Austria Printed Local Currency

 

I believe we merely need to solve simple poverty and a natural rate unemployment via equal application of the law regarding the concept of employment at will and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines.

 

I see the point about currency, and it goes a long ways towards the effects of a lawful and peaceful revolution. It however does little to correct an infiltrated government that will use mass murder of citizens to further treason.
It also does little to assure justice for citizens or assure the purpose of free speech manifests to protect unalienable rights.

A good temporary measure to alleviate suffering is what it is.

 

But...… it is more complicated because we have to balance the whole thing with a plan to simultaneously begin stabilization of the climate?!

Don't we?????

Notice post #4 here please....... I cannot really argue any major point that AA makes here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/humor...ut-we-assist-jews-get-rabbi-nachman-back.html

Dear Pope Francis...... how about we assist the Jews .................

....................

Dear Pope Francis......... a few days ago I got a personal message through this forum...... that I immediately asked if I could post it publicly...... the implications of all this are off the scale.

 

Based on some of the other posts that I have read by ChristopherABrown...… I strongly suspect that if he were in a position of great political or bureaucratic power...… he would defend my right to elaborate on such controversial proposals as.............

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...mageddon-could-bring-world-out-recession.html

Artistic Hollywood style "Armageddon" could bring world out of recession?!

.........A serious attempt to replicate "Armageddon" would create a minimum of two hundred million jobs in China, India, Russia and Mongolia alone....... not to mention the number of jobs this would generate in Israel and the surrounding nations.




Revelation 9:16

"And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them."

China now holds so many American dollars that any possible way to cooperate at a higher level seems to be worthy of consideration.

One of the "stages" is the Jerusalem Third Temple complex. Without conflict a film is boring and we all know that lots of conflict surrounds the idea of rebuilding the Third Temple. Two logical years for this to happen are 2030 (only fifteen years in the future) and also 2070.
.............................. ......................

Oh wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just noticed something in that verse that I had never previously clued to........"horsemen".......... .. two hundred million men capable of riding a horse........... will not be easy to organize by 2027?????!

Also.... they need to become sufficiently adept with swords, spears, bows and arrows...... that they can put some fear in poor ol' Disciple John/ Yohannan.......(or whoever it actually was who was given the visionary dream known to Christians and the Messianic community as The Book of Revelation or The Apocalypse)!

.... and scare Israel's IDF...... NOT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!?

 

Yes, and the purpose of free speech is vital to communicating the absolute aspects of that. Having a government which is infiltrated and obsessed with global domination and military industry is a big hinderance at the least. It will never join in the defense of unalienable rights, and your post is about the preservation of a very important one.

And, there is no point in taking any chances on that. We need a government that can be responsive to such issues, period.

At a point, we will be unable to assure such government. Accordingly, logically, efficiently and assuredly, working for such a government in any case, is an absolute, immediate necessity. They is why I do what I do here, and I've never done anything different here.

We can see the partisan division which (is) could easily be a mechanism of the infiltrated government to perpetuate itself.

We can see the extreme unaccountability of members here, the evasion, the dilution and distraction lending to the disunity the infiltration exploits to hold power. The only safe assumption is that such members are agents of the infiltration.

The only safe procedure to deal with that is to filter them by exposing their agenda. Exposing their agenda is only done by requiring all members you debate with to do something completely acceptable that a covert agent cannot do because it is counter to their agenda.

That agenda has a prime directive of disabling the unity required to alter or abolish.

Agreement with this inquiry creates the unity needed to alter or abolish.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Take notice of each member that has been presented with that inquiry and evaded answering it. Refuse to seriously debate with them. Align with others who agree and accept those prime principles to further expose those who refuse to enable the unity required to alter or abolish.

Later your agreement with them can serve to directly alter or abolish.

I am intrinsically, functionally focused, with tangible action, on the very first, real step of solution to the problem Dennis posts about. And, many other problems.

 

Thank you immensely ChristopherABrown and......

… up here in Canada... and I believe to some extent also in the USA.....INCOME TAX was viewed as a temporary measure to partly finance the build up of war material necessary to fight WWII?!?!

Now that WWII is over......… we do need to discuss the ways in which INCOME TAX can be reduced........ Canada P. M. MacKenzie struck on an excellent policy back in 1940... He began to put about fifty percent of Canada's total money supply into the economy through loans at zero or one percent interest to finance infrastructure projects such as building roads, hospitals or schools.

It is logical that any loan going out to build a road, hospital or school..... should be at zero or nearly zero interest....... if........ the owners of the Bank of Canada and the USA Federal Reserve in theory........ would ultimately be voters................ and of course representatives in Parliament, Congress and our Senate's should be sticking up for our rights in this area......…
.... Income Tax should be reduced...… and infrastructure projects should be financed at zero interest..... or nearly zero interest rates?!

.......

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...eform-our-unsustainable-financial-system.html

How can we now reform our unsustainable financial system?



Is John Hotson Ph. D. correct in the following assertion?

http://www.mailstar.net/money.html

How can the Democratic Party use this idea to recover their lost popularity?

A related question is.... did President Lincoln actually save American taxpayers roughly four billion dollars in interest payments?

If so.... how can we apply this principle in 2014 without causing excessive jitteriness on the financial markets?

.......
Note.... ChristopherABrown.... I think that this may be one of the first threads that you and I met each other in!?

 

There is more to this than just agreeing with it and accepting it for Americans.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

There is that which has the purpose of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Without that, alter or abolish is an empty right.

With that, after the alteration of the US government, serious, comprehensive work can be done on the economy to fix it and protect it from further manipulation.

This is correct.

With all of these things our ability to communicate and organize will be further enabled by the purpose of free speech which will collectively enable us to reduce our detrimental impacts on the environment and properly enable our best control over ourselves protecting our futures without measure.

All of our problems are about behaviors. See my signature.

 

I have some really good news......… near death experiencer Howard Storm was shown a future where the chains of DEBT sure seem to have been broken off every American............… and I assume that this example had spread to most if not all of the earth?????


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04

Now maybe I am way off in this idea but Howard had his NDE in 1985 and at that time technology took up a lot of space. I have wondered if seriously high tech gadgets might not have been there in that future....... but it might have been that they fitted so well in the environment that Howard Storm Ph. D. didn't even notice them????????

 

Would you tend to agree with my idea that a more Theistic version of Evolutionary Theory could play a significant role in assisting us to place a higher value on human life?

If....... we generally tend to agree that perhaps some sort of higher intelligence exists that seems to be somewhat "sentimental" and emotionally attached to humans and other creatures......... then............. this idea could radically alter our level of willingness to finance efforts to save lives...... and improve lives.............both for humans but also even for animals, birds, fish and other life forms?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=442857&page=2&p=1065814274#post1065814274

A massive reevaluation of national wealth must occur in order to finance....
..... the shift over to a truly green and sustainable economy!

I just got back a brilliant summary of the numbers for the national wealth of the world's leading economies but.......
... it is apparent to me that we must look at these numbers and rethink the entire formula....... if we wish to finance the shift over to a truly green, truly sustainable economy.... and do it with the minimum amount of economic, political and social upheaval?!
............

 

The US income tax started as the "war tax". The 16th amendment does not authorize its imposition continuously, congress must reapply its imposition each year.

States citizens by actively using the 9th amendment under the supremacy clause can define constitutional intent. The exclusive right of the people.

That intent can be imposed upon state legislators lawfully because state legislators represent the people in the act of altering or abolishing through Article V. If legislators fail to agree with and accept the constitutional intent defined by the people the people are deprived of the right to have all amendments with constitutional intent.