# Freedom of Speech Has An Ultimate Legal, Constitutional Purpose



## Christophera (May 26, 2015)

In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.

What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?

Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.

This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.

Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich

Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 26, 2015)

hey chris,check your pm box.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 26, 2015)

Christophera said:


> In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> 
> If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
> 
> ...


yeah I remember talking to someone a couple years ago about how corrupt our government is and he in fact mentioned everything you said i remember vividly cause you cant forget something like that so i know that in fact is indeed true. this guy really studied it in depth.


----------



## Christophera (May 27, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah I remember talking to someone a couple years ago about how corrupt our government is and he in fact mentioned everything you said i remember vividly cause you cant forget something like that so i know that in fact is indeed true. this guy really studied it in depth.



Good!  Glad to hear others have followed the same path of intent from the Declaration.  It's pretty obvious after the fact.  I almost felt like slapping myself for not getting to the point sooner.  But there is a serious business of distraction and mal focus in politics that the partisan division machine works, and has worked, so its not surprising that so few have tracked it down to a deficiency relating to the defining the purpose of the right of free speech.

There is an issue where some tend to think the constitution only applies limits on what government can do or how they can regulate us by prohibitions.

But there are other perspectives that deserve occupying.

If indeed the purpose of free speech is to enable unity so Americans can alter or abolish government destructive to rights, and the supreme court gave corporations individual rights, then this has been indirectly violated.

_
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;_

The court basically conducted a manipulation which consisted of a court reporter assuming something that was not a real decision.

*Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue.*

Then the justices used it as if it was.  At every turn we find authority confounding the American people with unreasonable collusions, then carrying on if it was all fully reasonable.

Clearly, we have the court doing the dirty work for the congress.  Same with citizens united.

But what happened with corporate personhood, what was a bad situation with the press became far worse when accountability was even more difficult to attain because one had to sue a media corporation with a entire raft of attorneys working in an environment where friends of the corporations are buying lunch and dinner for the judges!

That led to a massive series of manipulations upon the people having to do with what information they had to use to evaluate their world.  Slowly, after a couple of generations, all of that misleading became normal, and then dependency for Americans very thoughts was centered upon what these corporations wanted people to think.

WIth the advent of radio and television, this increased multifold.  Then people like Edward Bernayes developed ways of subtly manipulating thinking or emotions with symbols which led to the field of semiotics.  Since 1979 degrees in semiotics have been handed out to people who immediately went to work in advertising, public relations or for film and TV production companies as writers.

Things got so warped from the natural purpose of free speech, that it became a game for self aggrandizement, and survival, justice and rights were pretty much left out of the mix.

Sometimes I think that the doomsayers, the ones that are secretly hoping for disaster are really wanting something to force everyone to be real with their communications and cease with the BS that is corporate driven nonsense.  Something that forces people to deal with one another honestly on a survival level.

Where you don't mislead or frivolously engage someone in conversation that is superfluous because your life depends on actual real communication that is meaningful.

Well, we have the chance to do that in the real world to arrest tyranny in its tracks and end its advance upon us simply by rejecting partisan politics as anything functional; yes, we might want to pay some attention to it and make better decisions in partisan issues with regard to what we've learned about constitutional intent, etc.; until politics can be focused upon principals by virtue of amendment ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech and we learn some of what is really going on.

I'd like to say the purpose is a double edged sword with both edges cutting for our interests, but it is really better than that, but triple edged swords don't work, so its like a trident.

One, we agree upon a natural law principal that reads like; freedom of speech assures information vital to survival is shared and understood.  Two, that agreement is PRIME constitutional intent.  Three, that prime constitutional intent happens to be capable of controlling our states activity at an Article V convention to amend the constitution.

But back to the prohibitions against government making a law abridging free speech.  With regard to the powerful using their power to abridge the purpose of free speech, the government needs to disallow that, OR, the constitution it is bathed to protect can be destroyed eventually.

Basically, constitutionally, the government has a duty to keep systems of communication in place so the people can use them to unify so that at any time the government becomes destructive to unalienable rights, we are ready to alter or abolish before any real damage is done.

It sounds kind of communistic, but as long as very human principles that are fully in accord with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and capitalism is still allowed to do everything except create wars, usurp the constitution or cause planetary extinctions, we're okay.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 27, 2015)

The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.


----------



## heirtothewind (May 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.



I, too, was perplexed as to what the thread is about.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 27, 2015)

Count me confused as well.


----------



## PratchettFan (May 27, 2015)

Christophera said:


> In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> 
> If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
> 
> ...


 
There is no such thing as an inalienable right.  The concept is meaningless, and thus is interpreted to mean anything the user desires.  It carries absolutely no legal impact and the Founders thought so much of the idea they mentioned it not a single time in the only document that mattered.  If there was an inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would have been illegal since the founding of the nation.

The purpose of Article V is to set up a system by which the Constitution can be amended.  It is not so the people can alter or abolish the government.  The Constitution has absolutely no provisions to allow the people to do anything except through their elected officials.  In short, Article V only allows the government to alter the government.  As to the Founders opinion on the people doing that around the government, the  only crime they actually defined in the Constitution was treason.  I think that pretty much outlines their view.  And if that doesn't do it for you, the first president to send armed troops against American citizens who decided they could go around the government was George Washington - who I think qualifies as one of the Founders.

It's been over 200 years since the ratification of the Constitution and people have been talking about disaster ever since.  We're still here.


----------



## heirtothewind (May 27, 2015)

Always very comical when someone attempts to sound erudite with abstractions.


----------



## Christophera (May 27, 2015)

I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained.  Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.

Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny.  Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand.  A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.

It used to be they tried to argue, but they always lost and exposed themselves in the process.  Then I saw they would show up with some drive-by-posting and take unaccountable pot shots so they don't lose credibility trying to argue against the obvious.  Depending instead on the social impetus applied with uniformity.

If I catch any of ya pretending you care about rights and freedom after this, I'm on your case.

heirtothewind
PratchettFan
*there4eyeM*
*C_Clayton_Jones*


----------



## PratchettFan (May 27, 2015)

Christophera said:


> I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained.  Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.
> 
> Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny.  Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand.  A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.
> 
> ...



I notice you responded to none of my points, just complained that others had the nerve to not agree with you.  I care far more about rights and freedoms than you ever will, because for me they are real - not some fantasy excuse for you to have your own way.  So be on my case.  I am not bothered by children.


----------



## heirtothewind (May 28, 2015)

Christophera said:


> I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained.  Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.
> 
> Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny.  Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand.  A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.
> 
> ...



What the hell is the OP trying to say????


----------



## Christophera (May 28, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> ...


----------



## Christophera (May 28, 2015)

This forum software is a POS.  There is so much advertising on the site it is very glitchy and I just posted something that cannot be read because it cannot be seen.  WTF?

Where are my comments to PratchettFan's statements?   Go back to the old software, this software is garbage.

I try to quote a post, and the last post I tried to quoted is what I get instead of the post I tried to quote.  This software is junk.

No wonder josf doesn't use quotes.


----------



## Christophera (May 28, 2015)

heirtothewind said:


> What the hell is the OP trying to say????



That you are pretending to be clueless.  Read the OP, it makes sense.  Or read my reply to ratchett, if you can see it.


----------



## PratchettFan (May 29, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
I think our basic contention can be broken down to a single quote from your response, "This is about constitutional intent not law."  You are free to talk about what the intent was, but the only thing that matters is law.  I think your position on the intent of the Founders is wildly inaccurate, but that doesn't matter a whit because the only thing that does matter is law. 

As to inalienable rights...  The term "inalienable" means something which cannot be separated from you.  It can be neither taken away nor given away. An inalienable right is a very pretty phrase, but it is meaningless.  Which is why you find it only in the DOI, a document which was intended to rally people to arms and was never intended as a framework for a government.  It specifically refers to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The third item really means nothing as I can flay you alive while roasting you over a slow fire and you are still free to pursue happiness - you just won't catch it.  As to the others, in every state you will find facilities whose entire purpose is to deprive people of their liberty and, in many cases, their lives.  They are called prisons.  If you actually believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights then you would believe the only punishment for first degree murder would be a hefty fine.  Is that what you believe?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (May 29, 2015)

Christophera said:


> In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> 
> If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
> 
> ...



Not surprisingly, what the country started as, and what it became are two vastly different things. Yes, the framers of the Constitution wanted the People able to overthrow a corrupted US government. But in the few centuries since that, the government's diversified itself throughout its' borders making that impossible. And it's worth asking whether the US government is actually in charge any more anyway. Business seems inexoribly mingled up with government and to be the man behind the curtain. Think government is little more than a scapegoat now, and business is who's really in charge of things. So attempting to overthrow the government wont actually do anything because the real problem remains to reassociate itself with whatever rises from government ashes.


----------



## Christophera (May 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Uh, you missed the most important part of the law.

*ARTICLE V*
_or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, *shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,* when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,_

This is OUR JOB, and we are the only ones that can do it rightfully.  It is our natural law duty to future generations to do it well.

Where do you stand with that?


----------



## Christophera (May 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> ...



Very good post!  Comprehensive to the many barriers placed before us to restore constitutional government.

True, the government is not really in charge.  But, there are tens of thousands of government employees that believe that if the people rise up lawfully, they must recognize that over the puppets that are their bosses.

It is a matter of strategy in approaching their bosses, and letting them know who is master and why.

What I propose is not really an overthrow.  It is a re programming.  The main code that is supposed to be in charge, the constitution has been ignored after abandonment in 1871.  There was a covert infiltration.  COVERT is the key word.  A nation like this must be taken over in the open.

My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it.  This make the control over the government OURS, if we UNIFY to amend the program to give ourselves more and more unity.

The purpose of free speech will do that if we can see it manifested.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


Your first paragraph is correct, the second, not – or at least not entirely accurate.

Our rights are indeed inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

One's liberty or life cannot be taken by government without first affording him his inalienable right to due process of the law.

As you note in your first paragraph the only thing that matters is the law, which is correct; where the law determines the extent of one's inalienable rights on the one hand, and places limits on government with regard to restricting one's inalienable rights on the other.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2015)

CHRISTOPHERA SAID: 

"My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."

Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 29, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.




As are you.


----------



## Christophera (May 29, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



It is entirely accurate that "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", which means they are the only entities that can create the basis of law.  In the case of Article V they must be unified to assure constitutional intent.

Restriction of unalienable rights cannot really begin because that may continue into destruction without accountability IF the people are not unified adequately to alter or abolish effectively if destruction of rights occurs.  

What appears to have happened is that restriction has been applied without the people being unified.  

However, if the people are adequately unified then they can authorize restrictions if they are really needed, and they are the ones that can properly authorize restrictions.

In the case of a government that has intentionally made a population ignorant so they might appear to need restrictions is unjust, immoral and unethical.  

The dilemma returns to the original deficiencies created by the sabotage of the framing documents coming back to haunt the infiltration attempting to impose tyranny on a people that inherently believe they are free.  In this case not aware of the tyrannical preparations for dominance manipulations over generations attempting to degrade a people to a point where they need restrictions imposed.


----------



## Christophera (May 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> CHRISTOPHERA SAID:
> 
> "My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."
> 
> Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.



That is what it says, because anything else would awaken the masses, and that they always work to avoid; but its actions over and over again violate the intent of the 1787 constitution.  The statutes of 1871 bypass it.

The fact that the Admiralty flag flies in all official places is an overt sign of the dominance of the infiltrating force bypassing the 1787 constitution.  The civil courts are a joke and common law is no longer recognized.

A ludicrous example is the reliance upon precedent recorded supposedly to create consistency in court decisions referring to the past.  In reality it is a slow twisting and bending of statute laws into decisions that are lawless and only reflect the designs of corrupt judges working with lawyers who are more corrupt.

GATT and NAFTA are outright treason that has crippled the nations economy and robbed a generation of the parents work building vital industries.  Such industries were shipped off to foreign nations where no environmental controls and labor law could increase corporate profits to a maximum at the cost of vital elements shared by the people of the world and some victim population sold out by their own business people colluding with American multinational corporations.

In California the governor was sued by a Canadian company, methane, for banning MTBE which destroys waters ability to hold oxygen.  His effort to defined his actions using US law and California law were rejected by the military tribunal court given authority over US law and state law under NAFTA.  Obscene, criminality and treason.

To get into the wars, and why America invested in them, is far more than is needed.


----------



## natstew (May 30, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.



Our resident moron has spoken again


----------



## Christophera (May 31, 2015)

natstew said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.
> ...



The fact that there is no quoted specific "nonsense" OR "ignorance", as "labeled", a cognitive distortion, "all or nothing thinking" and "over generalization"; which disables critical thinking; indicates you are correct.


----------



## RandallFlagg (May 31, 2015)

Christophera said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > CHRISTOPHERA SAID:
> ...




Indeed. Now, with Obama given fast-track authority, the Pacific Rim Treaty will finish our manufacturing base off - thus forcing millions more Americans onto the public dole.

The blame for this, besides Obama? Our own Congress.


----------



## Christophera (May 31, 2015)

RandallFlagg said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Absolutely correct, treason by BO and the congress, and more reason to energetically drop partisan politics except for crisis management and increase the engagement of a lawful and peaceful revolution.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conceptually, agreeing and accepting that free speech has a purpose, enables our capacity to have a constitutional revolution.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



The same place I was before, telling you that you are wrong.  All you are doing is quoting the amendment process to the Constitution which is done by the various state governments - not by the people.  You can certainly petition your state government to call for a convention, but it will be those governments which actually do it.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable. 

*Full Definition of INALIENABLE*
*:* incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing.  It does not exist.  It is a meaningless term which carries no weight.  The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...




That's because you have the word wrong.
It's unalienable rights.
*UNALIENABLE.* *The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.*
Unalienable Rights Defined

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

peach174 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



And you think that makes them exist?  So they can't be given away but they can be taken away?  An utterly meaningless word.

Educate me.  What is the difference between a right and an unalienable right?


----------



## peach174 (Jun 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



A right is done by man's law and can also be taken away by other laws.
Unalienable right is given by the creator and can't be taken from man's law.
Man can write laws that can take a lawbreakers life from them but never from a law abiding man.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...




No, that is not all I'm doing.

I am explaining how to control the states by the peoples agreement upon constitutional intent, THEN 3/4 of the states control Article V.

The state government needs to be slapped into shape by the people before they will perform constitutionally at a convention.

Clearly there is a MASSIVE need to prepare for an Article V convention.

This thread here is all about Americans compelling their states to conduct "Preparatory Amendment".

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Christophera (Jun 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



You don't get it.

IT'S AN IDEAL!

One we cannot give up.  One worth fighting for.

Are you going to spend the rest of your life making excuses, sniveling and taking orders from despots?  Or understand how agreement upon constitutional intent in order to become the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.

This link has a state by state strategy for a lawful peaceful revolution.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

peach174 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



So, for practical purposes, there is no difference at all.  As I said, a meaningless term.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Actually, there is no indication at all we need an Article V convention and the vast majority of the "people" are not calling for it.  So just who are you talking about when you say the "people"?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 1, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



No.  I'm going to spend my life in defense of a nation. As I have my entire life.  I strongly suspect your concept of what this nation should be is not even vaguely what I think it should be and I have no delusions over what my "unalienable rights" would be should you get your way.  If there is one thing history teaches us, never trust anyone who is doing it for "the people".


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

Actually I use the term "American people", because they are the only ones that can define constitutional intent.

Maybe you are not aware of what ALEC is doing.  They are definitely not the people.  In sure we don't want them controlling Article V, but that is what your act supports by default.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

Christophera said:


> Actually I use the term "American people", because they are the only ones that can define constitutional intent.
> 
> Maybe you are not aware of what ALEC is doing.  They are definitely not the people.  In sure we don't want them controlling Article V, but that is what your act supports by default.


 
Since the "American people" are not calling for an Article V convention, then that issue is pretty much settled. 

I am very much aware of what ALEC is doing, and has been doing for some time.  You understand the members of ALEC are American citizens and are therefore also the "American people"?  The "American people" are not uniform.  They consist of more than 300 million individuals who do not see things the same way.  ALEC, ACLU, PETA and the BSA are all part of the "American people".  This really highlights why I don't trust people who talk about "the people".  They typically divide "the people" into two categories.  Those who agree with their way and those who will have to be forced to do it their way.  I think I'll go with the rule of law instead.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> ...


There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Those declared inalienable.  It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.


----------



## paperview (Jun 2, 2015)

peach174 said:


> That's because you have the word wrong.
> It's unalienable rights.
> *UNALIENABLE.* *The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.*
> Unalienable Rights Defined
> You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.



Oh geeze.  Not this again.

Those two words mean the same thing.

Unalienable / Inalienable


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I use the term "American people", because they are the only ones that can define constitutional intent.
> ...



Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.
U.S. House finally adopts rule to count Article V Convention applications - National Progressive Examiner.com

Would all of these things be true if the American people were not calling for a convention?


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you have the word wrong.
> ...



And both words refer to an ideal.

Are you trying to get people to give up on ideals?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I point to reality and understanding of human nature.  I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want".  You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws.  It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change.  Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise.  Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...





Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



No.  I am not aware of that.  There were 9 calls for a convention that year and none of them had the required number.  Nor are there the required number currently.  This is because that while the various states are constantly calling for a convention, there is no movement for one amongst the citizenry.  If there were, you wouldn't be posting a youtube video, you'd be posting an excerpt from the national news.  The reason the states are doing it is because the legislatures are run by politicians who see this as an easy way to look like they are doing something without the bother of actually doing anything.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I asked you to name one.  Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



The ideals address needs, not wants.  

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution.  You have no plan.  You have no morals and ethics.  You have no hope.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



There is no required number.  If there is, post the text from the section of the constitution which states it.

There are numerous websites with thousands of members and numerous groups working for Article V.

Maybe you haven't seen the thread where congress just stopped its 226 years of violation of the constitution.

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



What you think is a need is just a want.  I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution.  But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please.  It does not matter to me at all.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



You talk about the Constitution as if you know it but you want me to post what is in Article V?  I really wish people who talk about the Constitution would take just a few minutes to actually read it. 

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I see.  So again, it is meaningless.  Either you have the right to a trial or you do not.  Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right.  If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't.  What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.


----------



## dblack (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> ...



The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 2, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



No.  What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law.  And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.

Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law.  They recognize it and abide by it.  Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Seems you have not.

Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.

The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence.  It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others.  Bolded below.

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, *it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,* laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness._

The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.

*How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?*


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



A republic has principles.  It is the downfall of a republic to be unable to define the principles of it.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Hah!  Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

*Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?*


----------



## Christophera (Jun 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...




Ah, are you aware there have been over 700 applications for Article V?

Last time I checked, there were only 50 states.  Two thirds of that = 34.

Do you realize congress was not even counting applications until January?

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Christophera (Jun 3, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



A good point because the states, or most if them, authorized the constitution.

Hence the basis of the strategy posted, or using prime constitutional intent upon state legislators because Article V gives the power to alter or abolish to them.

Therefore we make them answerable to us regarding the prime intents of the republic they authorized.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


It is a right recognized in State Constitutions and those supreme laws of the land of those States; whom do you believe a Judge has to follow more rather than follow less.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law".  That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have.  People used "natural law" to justify slavery.  The only thing which should matter at all is law.

The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution.  The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution.  That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws".  It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document.  the Founders understood the difference.

The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government.  That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution.  It is called treason.  What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state.  It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 
You need to read what you just wrote.  You are saying it is a right recognized by the various governments.  If it has to be recognized by the government to exist, it is not unalienable.  The right does not exist because it is somehow inherent to you and can't be taken away.  It exists because the law says it exists and only because the law says it exists.  Remove the law, or remove the community's adherence to the law, and that right disappears.  Calling it unalienable changes nothing.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
Here we agree.  I just don't think you understand those principles.  You keep looking for them in the wrong place.


----------



## dblack (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



That's important too, but without a common understanding of why we want law in the first place, government becomes little more than an arbitrary tool for pushing people around. Which is what we're seeing today.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
Perhaps you have never served this nation in uniform.  I did and I took an oath to defend the Constitution.  That meant up to laying down my life if necessary.  Perhaps the difference between us, and the reason we can't seem to communicate, is that I see myself as part of this nation and you see yourself as apart from it. 

Do I need my life?  Of course.  But I am not the most important thing in the universe, or even in this nation.  For that matter, I'm not the most important thing in my family.  Personal is not the same as important (a quote from Terry Pratchett).  That I need my life does not mean I have an unalienable right to it.  I have a legal right to due process and that right exists because of this nation, not in spite of it.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
Who is "we"?  There are over 300 million of us and there are drastic differences as to what each of us want.  Where is the common understanding between a socialist and a libertarian, because we have both.  The purpose of a republican government is to create an environment in which all of those different understandings can exist in a relatively peaceful condition, not to create a uniform position. That is the purpose of a tyranny.

What we are seeing today is an era of unprecedented freedom.  Freedom to such an extent that people think they are being oppressed whenever they are told they can't do whatever they want.  The dissatisfaction is not because we lack freedom, it is because we are spoiled and lack perspective.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...





Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.

If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.

You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.

It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.

Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.

Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.

American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.

Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
I don't think I have evaded it.  I've dealt with it head on.  It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept.  There is no such thing as natural law.  There is no such thing as an inherent right.  They do not exist.  All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not. 

You are living in a fantasy world.  Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.


----------



## dblack (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



If you can't understand the significance of inalienable rights, they you're talking about something fundamentally different when you talk about 'freedom'. That's the point I'm getting at.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes, we are talking about something fundamentally different.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is.  This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you.  I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due.  Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


I always try to provide some difficulty.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 3, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I'm sure you think you do.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


Practice makes perfect if i think i can.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



You are not reading.  I repeat.

"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 4, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
You are not reading.  I have already responded to that claim and done so more than once.  They didn't intend.  Not even a little bit.  Your claim that Article V is about that is absurd.  I understand you want it to be that way, but wanting it doesn't make it so.  And your thinking there is even a small minority of American citizens who desire that, let alone are calling for it, is pure fantasy.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 4, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 
Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you?  Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men?  Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously.  Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips.  Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


It is the difference between mere animals and political animals.  Social justice was developed for a reason.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 4, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Hah hah hah hah .   .   .  This is the last forum you want to try and lie in.

It's not a claim, it's a question.

If you had addressed it, it would be in the above chain of quotes, and it's not.

You are a joke.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 4, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


 
"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."

There is no question mark in that sentence.  You are a spoiled child and you are now boring me.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you?  *Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men?*  Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously.  Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips.  Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.



The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 4, 2015)

Christophera said:


> In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> 
> If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. *HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power?* Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
> 
> ...





PratchettFan said:


> "Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."
> 
> There is no question mark in that sentence.  You are a spoiled child and you are now boring me.



A spoiled child needs grammatical perfection every time they are asked a question.

The quote at top is the OP and it asks that question with a question mark.

Your failure to read and your evasion made a need to ask again.

Now answer it or be a traitor to the intents of the framers and the law they created as well as a spoiled child.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 4, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you?  *Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men?*  Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously.  Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips.  Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
> ...



Absolutely  dblack.

Which is why our unity is required to gain the power to abolish said "roving bans of armed men".

This thread here,

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Has the strategy to use our unity created around that which natural law and the framers intended to serve the purpose of manifesting that unity.

It is the best way to escape the box of partisan politics and for the American people to gain the upper hand as they are supposed to have.

Each true and sincere American needs to make this information about the purpose of free speech a part of their daily dialog with friends, family and aquaintences because the purpose is abridged by infiltrated government controlling media.

When we do that, when we create a buzz above and beyond the BS media has us focusing on to control us, then we will be taking the role of "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

BTW, it is very unlikely that pratchett is anything but a paid agent for the infiltrated government and an advocate for the legitimacy of said "roving bands of armed men".

Americans armed under the 2nd amendment can take care of gangsters okay.   The fact that police have been armed with military level weapons and equipment shows us the real threat.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 4, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you?  *Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men?*  Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously.  Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips.  Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.
> ...


 
That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified.  Governments are not a different species.  They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation.  That is why we also have the courts.  It seems to be working just fine.


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.



> ... It seems to be working just fine.



That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 4, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Clearly you are unexperienced.  I am going to post proof that the US district court in Los Angeles violated US code in order to conceal treason and mass murder.







The original filing of 38 pages complete with all evidence proving the concealment of treason by FEMA, PBS, Guiliani and Silverstein are on this first page.
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

The concealment of treason is proven here.
Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

and here
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

Further, in 1998 the courts allowed the sheriffs dept. here to fail to appear on subpoena in a case regarding the most important records a society can keep.  The records I subpoenaed would have proven such records were absent from the local court records.






Between those 2 instances another federal suit was filed to try and compel effective mental health care for drug addiction and alcoholism.  In that situation the same court that later concealed treason secretly revised a 125 year old court rule which deprived all citizens in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit of virtual pre se civil rights.  That has now extended to the entire nation and there is no note anywhere of the revision.

Also, the local newspaper was bought in 2002, undoubtedly to stop a story about that lawsuit.  When a reporter was given a copy of the lawsuit, two weeks later the firings, resigning and gagging of reporters began.

Here they are in protest in De La Gurerra Plaza in from of the news press building.









The complete story with links to the lawsuit and further deprivations of right, due process and justice are linked from there.

Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.

You have no clue, and certainly do not want anyone to have a clue.

Our courts do not function when it comes to correcting lawless government and the purpose of free speech is abridged.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 5, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
The Constitution creates checks and balances within the government to prevent any one branch from becoming supreme and it creates rights for the citizenry and the states.  To that extent, it does limit the power of the government.  But it does this through the government, not external to it.  The Supreme Law of the Land has no meaning if there is no structure within which it can operate.  So the reality is that the government is self-limiting.

Every generation thinks its problems are unique.  We are no more polarized or stymied by conflicting ideologies than we have been in the past.  It just seems that way since it is no longer acceptable to crush minorities into silence.  This is somewhat exacerbated by a press that sees its job as selling the news rather than reporting it, so every tiny hiccup is a national disaster.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 5, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



The fact is that no branch of the government will uniformly uphold rights therefore it's exploitation of American people is unethical, immoral and against the principles of the 1787 constitution.

You are unaccountable to the intent stated in the Declaration of Independence for the people to have rights and alter or abolish a government destructive to them.  Those principles are carried through as law in the constitution.

You have zero credibility because you have not answered the question about how the framers intended Americans to have the power to alter or abolish.

Instead you rally rhetorical cognitive distortions of "all or nothing thinking" and "over generalizing" in efforts to "minimalize" with posting of no consequence taking up space.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 5, 2015)

Members here should know that I have notified the local superior court of their culpability in supporting the concealment of treason and the secrecy by which it has been conducted for 17 years.  The presiding judge this letter was sent to have up his position to a judge in another city of the county about a month after this letter was mailed.

Orienting to Constitutional Defense

There is extensive facts of psychology documenting how hypnosis can effectively create such collusion and behaviors between people as well as massive documentation of deprivations of due process and civil rights by judges acting in concert to remove my ability to effectively use my right to free speech.

The purpose of free speech cannot be used effectively to create unity without absolutely huge amounts of money.

Judges and others here have used clerks, commissioners and law enforcement as well as legal counsel for the county to evade the law, accountability and responsibility for decades if not over a century when the events if 1876 in Santa Barbara are considered.

The societal system uses fears created by religion and hammered into migrated European society, to a point where deep unconscious revulsion is compulsively felt by some Americans attempting to assimilate the facts about our unconscious existence.

The treasonous efforts at destruction of our republic and it's constitution exploit these unreasoned fears at every turn and the American public pays the price.

This applies to the victims if 9/11, to our sfiers deceptively led to war supporting the empire, it applies to the university students of Isla Vista murdered in mass by unconsciously programmed individuals directed to kill post hypnotically

It applies to the victims of MKultra who act post hypnotically within conspiracies as spies, as theives, as sex slaves, and other activities needed to dominate then destroy our republic.

All the while decent, ordinary Americans cling to their unreasoned fears in denial hoping that tomorrow will bring relief from the mounting tyranny.

NO, only the truth will bring relief, and it's loving use can do that.

Ratshit, you are one sick pos.


ON EDIT:
WTF is with the constant redirects of links to facts exposing treason?  

I was invited back to this board after being banned in 2011 on the premise MIGHT be okay under new administration.

Well that is not the case if I post a link and it is redirected to a page with an inactive url that must beg copied and pasted to be used.

Allowing such activity is essentially condoning the concealment of treason and secret methods if mass murder.

How about some decent administration that makes those posting that act as agents accountable, or ban them?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 5, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society.  You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed.  A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized.  It's the nature of freedom.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 5, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Or the agent attempts to assert that because it is not a total dictatorship yet, relax, don't worry.  Ignore the information indicating all rights to improve the situation are rapidly evaporating.

The agent assures you that remaining complacent or developing the apathy that the agent and cohorts work to create is the easy and right thing to do.

Yea, its easy, but being a slave is not easy in an economy controlled by despotic corporations that have overthrown the constitution as this information about congress recent actions, 226 years overdue with Mark Levin leading the charge for ALEC.

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Notice that the agents are not positing in that thread.  No way do they want to draw attention to the scam starting up.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society.  You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed.  A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized.  It's the nature of freedom.



That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society.  You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed.  A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized.  It's the nature of freedom.
> ...



But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue.  Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society.  You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed.  A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized.  It's the nature of freedom.
> ...



And yet we don't see that happening.  Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2015)

Christophera said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Probably not.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in.  That changes ones outlook.  Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 7, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



This is that perspective problem.  You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this.  Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free.  You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression.  I suppose I should take that as a good sign.


----------



## dblack (Jun 7, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind.  Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.


----------



## dblack (Jun 7, 2015)

Christophera said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


I could, but I'm not interested in a "fight". If we can't persuade a majority of countrymen that freedom is a worthwhile concern, fighting for it won't matter much.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 7, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement.  It isn't.  It is a responsibility.


----------



## dblack (Jun 7, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No fight, it's facts that empower, that make the people the power by virtue of their agreement.
The nature of the agreement being universally and very deeply significant over generations, while also being prime constitutional intent, is what gives it its power.

Sharing those facts is uplifting.  Knowing so many can do easily make this agreement defining the purpose of free free speech is uplifting.

This is function above and beyond having a vote.  This is the function of focusing voters on the real problem of organizing voters, of enabling their informed opinions.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
It isn't both and that is not the entire point of government.  The point of government is to provide a secure environment for the people living within it.  Without such an environment, freedom does not exist.  Our particular form of government was designed to maximize freedom, but you are in no way entitled to it.  You just happened to be lucky in where you were born.  The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.


----------



## dblack (Jun 8, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Providing a secure environment is the _means_ by which government protects our freedom, but it's not the goal in and of itself. Or shouldn't be, in my view. 



> The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.



That much I agree with, 100%.


----------



## dblack (Jun 8, 2015)

Christophera said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



Fair enough. My ambivalence is toward calls to "fight" for our rights outside the political sphere (revolution, etc....). The only time revolution makes any sense is when a government is entirely disconnected from the will of the people, and I don't think that's the case. As long as our democracy is functioning at all, fighting against it in the name of "freedom" is a foolish quest. If we can't find a strong consensus for liberty, the best we can do is to look for greener pastures. And until we find them, do our best to fly under the radar.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 8, 2015)

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
I know you agree. You and I don't disagree on outcome, just on process.  That is the nature of a free society.  The only place you ever get consensus is in a tyranny.

Providing for a secure environment means people eat, they don't have to defend their homes against marauders, they have some degree of certainty that they will live to see tomorrow.  That is the purpose of government.  The more successful the government is in doing that, the more likely that the citizens will be able to concentrate on less important things, like freedom.  When your child's belly is swollen from starvation the rights of man are not even on your priority list, let alone at the top.

Right now there is a major drought going on in the western US.  At this point, it is a political football.  But consider what happens when the water supply no longer supports 30 million people.  Think what happens when you have 10 million refugees from the LA basin pushing out into the neighboring states.  Do you think freedom will be a high priority?


----------



## Christophera (Jun 8, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



That would be a cognitive distortion of "all or nothing thinking".

In a society where the purpose of free speech is abridged the people will be seriously impaired from knowing whether they have consensus or not.  The question cannot even be widely enough asked?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 8, 2015)

Christophera said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


yeah the people posting on here saying we do not live in a dictatership yeah are obviously agents.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.


ignorance? your one to talk.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 8, 2015)

Christophera said:


> I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained.  Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.
> 
> Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny.  Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand.  A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.
> 
> ...



yeah these posters you mentioned  clearly have reading comprehension problems.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 8, 2015)

Christophera said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


yeah that indeed was a good refreshing post.nice to see someone on here that doesnt have reading comprehension problems.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 8, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Yea, Delta had a clear perspective there.



Delta4Embassy said:


> So attempting to overthrow the government wont actually do anything because the real problem remains to reassociate itself with whatever rises from government ashes.



Which is why altering the government operation fundamentally through empowering democratic action by ending the abridging of free speech, causes a slow change from the bottom up, and the top down.  Ending up near the center where corporate influence has invisible control.  

As the people, the base or foundation of constitutional power become more aware of how to assume that power through their unity, and does so enough to empower more change through the truth to the pubic by the public, restoring the purpose of free speech with preparatory amendment, the top becomes more aware of how its failing to lead constitutionally, and actually acting on behalf of corporate welfare rather than principles of the constitution.

Working like this; after the preparation for Article V has taken place, the American peoples unity on prime issues will be quite high meaning that a few, very carefully thought out amendments will institute broad change that can only be made from the highest level, or that level will be voted out pretty much immediately.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 10, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
> ...






Delta4Embassy said:


> Not surprisingly, what the country started as, and what it became are two vastly different things. Yes, the framers of the Constitution wanted the People able to overthrow a corrupted US government. But in the few centuries since that, the government's diversified itself throughout its' borders making that impossible.



What they wanted was not quite overthrow, more specifically they said or wished for us to alter it, or if that is not possible, abolish it.

But that is semantics, and your statement in that part is basically correct.

In 1871 there was a major infiltration, and since that time the infiltration has done its best to diversify itself as you say.

But covert infiltrations just do not work well in our society.  The nature of America just doesn't take to it well.  Sure, wholly controlled institutions like the FBI, the NSA, etc. can be  taken over and with time, become an extension of the infiltration and such is easily disguised as "discipline" or "security".

However, a large percentage know what they are doing is wrong.  Therefore if Americans start doing what is right and ignoring the imposed agenda of the infiltration as much as possible, there will be a tendency to allow it; mostly because overtly opposing it looks so bad.

This is the way it is with the purpose of free speech.  Sincere Americans won't oppose it, because it is too reasonable, but the infiltrators expose themselves by trying, so don't.

Therein is the elements of success we have in our favor in this bad situation of infiltration.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 11, 2015)

dblack said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





dblack said:


> Fair enough. My ambivalence is toward calls to "fight" for our rights outside the political sphere (revolution, etc....). The only time revolution makes any sense is when a government is entirely disconnected from the will of the people, and I don't think that's the case.



I would agree relating to the face of politics we see.  It wants to be seen as connected to the people.  However, I'm aware of an undercurrent which has grown too strong to ignore that seeks to create chaos wherein it justifies disconnection with a feigned duty posing falsely presented as reason for imposition of order.

As long as that element is in control of media it basically tends to control democracy which is the connection to the people IF the principles of the people, constitutional intent are not controlling the republic.

When the word "republic" gets involved there is good case for political revolution that engages lawful means to see democracy enabled to secure the principles of the republic.  This is exactly the place where ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech becomes a logical issue.

It increases the connectedness between the people so democratic action can become effective towards restoring the principles of the republic over government.  That connectedness rightfully uses the force of law to cause amendment of the operating parameters of government as a form of lawful revolution.

The term revolution seems appropriate because it opposes an infiltration widely embedded, actually largely unknowingly, by adherence to policy that is outside of the principles if the republic.

Rather than "fight" I view it as a deeply empowered social contest between instinctual aspects of elite, and common peoples.  Empowered by the peoples capacity to understand fundamental constitutional intent.  Albeit, they are not used to doing so between themselves, which is the major social corruption imposed by the infiltration through media.

That is what must be overcome at this level.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 11, 2015)

At this point the mechanism for ending the abridging of the purpose of probably is appropriate to introduce.

The obvious thing to do is revise the First Amendment to define that speech which tend to enable the peoples unity for the purpose of altering or abolishing government destructive to their unalienable rights.  That speech is not only protected as all speech is, it is empowered or enabled by government.

We already see this in defacto forms with PBS and NPR as well as public access TV.  Those entities have all become big business and the bigger they are the more elite, while the smaller simply do not have adequate reach or influence.

So this draft is written in the classic interpretational context that the existing First Amendment has, but this enables and compels states to assure vital information held by the public is shared and understood widely.

*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 to 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.*

People of states would submit petition with a mandatory number of signatures regarding the production of an order to the largest corporate media of the state compelling the production of documentary or other appropriate form sharing the information by the corporation using state corporate licensure as leverage to compliance.

The petition would show that the information was vital to the continuity of  constitution principles, that the public generally does not currently know the information and that the information was not easily available by product of promotion.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 17, 2015)

What is not generally understood about the topic of this thread is that American government lawfully has the duty to itself and the people under it to assure Americans are adequately united at all times to alter or abolish any American government which has become destructive to unalienable rights.

The language of the draft revision of the First Amendment delineates aspects or elements of free speech which can or tend to produce unity having constitutional intent adequate and appropriate to cause the proper, lawful alteration or abolishment of government thusly perpetuating the constitutional republic with its inherent principles,


----------

