After 226 Years, The House Passes Rule To Count Applications For An Article V Convention

[Christopher A. Brown]

Congress has been operating beyond neglect for 226 years. Perhaps up until the act of 1871, it was inadvertent. However, after that act, states began to object and over time applications, were made at an increasing rate.

"A little-noticed change in the rules of the House may make it easier to change the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget."

http://stivers.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398530

Another aspect seen in the above link is the grey areas of Article V.

"Don Wolfensberger, a congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a resident scholar with the Bipartisan Policy Center, said many details of any constitutional convention remain unclear."

There is a thread here at the forum which introduces the "Countermand Amendment" which clarifies a few aspects which are generally considered "grey" and provides a method, having the same authority as Article V, but only to get rid of federal laws that violate states rights.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471264-Countermand-Amendment-Article-V-proposal-that-reduces-need-for-Article-V-but-same-authority

There is a history to this neglect by congress to count applications for an Article V convention which is rooted within the Article V activists. After a great deal of research, mostly by Bill Walker of FOAVC, Daniel Marks of Hawaii wrote a letter to the Clerk of congress which was understood and reacted to by Rep. Steve Stivers.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2013/04/30/congress-needs-to-comply-with-state-demands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/

For some reason I cannot load that page so cannot see if D. Marks letter, or the below letter is also there. The letter from Kirk Boyle, legal counsel to congress is here.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/Boyle_Response.pdf

The house affirmed and passed the rule as the link above shows.

ON EDIT:
Two threads which were posted in the U.S. politics forum were moved to grassroots. They are intrinsically related to this thread because both propose uses of Article V.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471264-Countermand-Amendment-Article-V-proposal-that-reduces-need-for-Article-V-but-same-authority

[Noob]

Say no to Article V Constitution

http://nagr.org/2015/DefendtheConstitution.aspx?pid=5b

[Christopher A. Brown]

Say no to Article V Constitution

http://nagr.org/2015/DefendtheConstitution.aspx?pid=5b

Why would anyone say no to the intent of the constitution to "alter or abolish" government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Your unreasoned fear mongering will fail in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Albeit, Americans are fearful of the infiltrated government. They should as that government colluded with many corporate forms after unconstitutionally empowering those forms with individual rights. Those forms worked to confuse, mislead and corrupt the American people to try and disable them from using their constitution to secure their rights and freedoms.

You have so little to say, just a link invoking fearful denial of our natural responsibility to ourselves and future generations.

You should know, that saying "no" to constitutional intent says "no" to the natural need to share and understand information vital to survival.

Saying "no" blocks our reach for our right to "alter or abolish" government destructive to our lives, our liberty and our perpetual pursuit of happiness by removing the constitutions tool for our defense of it.

If that is not what you block by asking people to live in fear by saying no, then answer yes to this question.


Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[Acala]

I'm just going to paste this here from another thread:

I think we all agree that any amendment to the Constitution should be directed at reigning in government power. Who exactly do you think is going to push for that? The majority of the public doesn't even support the existing limits on government power. The First Amendment would not pass a popular election. The American people LOVE dictators. Why would they choose delegates to a convention that are dedicated to further limitations? And what politicians will support further limitations on government power? In the past fifty years both major parties have had multiple opportunities to change the direction of the country with simultaneous congressional majorities and control of the White House and yet the size, scope, cost, and power of the Federal government has increased unabated.

Politicians LIKE unrestrained power. Crony capitalists LIKE unrestrained power. Even the stupid sheep LIKE unrestrained power. So who exactly is going to advocate new limitations on Federal power? Where do you think you are going to find anyone with any clout that really wants more restraint on the plunder machine?

People might agree on term limits, but that is trivial.

A truly balanced budget will ultimately be opposed by everyone who benefits from the largess. And if it passed it would have loopholes you could drive a truck through.

The bottom line is that this country is not being screwed over by Congress. The American people are screwing themselves. Congress is just the middleman and a convention would simply be congress writ large. The Constitution is being ignored and liberty is being destroyed because the American people either don't care, are too stupid to know, or WANT it that way. Americans are afraid of freedom and love tyranny. We WANT a king. There is nothing at all inherent in a convention that will suddenly restore in the people a love of liberty and hatred of tyranny. And there is no reason to think that convention delegates will be any better quality of statesmen than are our congressmen. A convention will be just another opportunity to legislate our own chains, as we have been doing at an accelerating pace since the first Constitution was ratified.

Bad idea.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

[puppetmaster]

Just because it is available does not mean that you want to invoke.

[Stratovarious]

We are a long way off from seeing our elected officials operate within their Constitutional power, and in honor
of the oaths of office they took before they started trampling the Constitution.

To suggest (in general, not directed to the op) we are at a point where it is safe to make changes to it
is not respectful of that which is already largely ignored.

, ,
.

[GunnyFreedom]

Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol

An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.

Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.

[Todd]

Your unreasoned fear mongering will fail in the land of the free and the home of the brave.



What country you living in buddy?

[Noob]

Under this The Bill of Rights well be on the chopping block, along with every thing else.

[NewRightLibertarian]

What country you living in buddy?

He's been listening to Mark Levin and it has warped his brain.

[fisharmor]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

So my point is - fuck it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm just going to paste this here from another thread:

I think we all agree that any amendment to the Constitution should be directed at reigning in government power. Who exactly do you think is going to push for that? The majority of the public doesn't even support the existing limits on government power.

There are two ways to view this. One, limiting governmental power, as you see it. Or two, empowering the people with the principals of the republic, constitutional intent.

You forget that Americans do not know what constitutional intent is. The purpose of free speech is constitutional intent, and Americans like the idea of being empowered to alter or abolish government destructive to their vital rights.

Educated Americans can unify and they WILL push for assuring their needs are met not violated.



The First Amendment would not pass a popular election. The American people LOVE dictators. Why would they choose delegates to a convention that are dedicated to further limitations?

The revision to the first amendment proposed manifests the purpose of free speech which in turn enables unity. That unity will express itself as democratic control over the the republic altering or abolishing government destructive to vital rights once the people are educated by themselves with the purpose of free speech. A few intelligent, courageous Americans is all it takes to get the snowball rolling.

The snowball will roll fast and gain size very rabidly because Americans KNOW that their futures are seriously threatened by government neglect, malfeasance, nonfeasance and corruption.


And what politicians will support further limitations on government power? In the past fifty years both major parties have had multiple opportunities to change the direction of the country with simultaneous congressional majorities and control of the White House and yet the size, scope, cost, and power of the Federal government has increased unabated.

Politicians that are sincere Americans exist, and there are quite a few. Currently they operate in fear of the infiltration of government at all levels. When they see the people capable of protecting and supporting them, they will step forward.

The parties are designed to be divisions, and only to divide. This is why most of the framers of the founding documents opposed parties. Within that, and the constant deception with misleading of the public by media collusive with the infiltration of the government established with the act of 1871, the power of the federal government has increased to the point where it can exhibit repeated contempt for the constitution.


Politicians LIKE unrestrained power. Crony capitalists LIKE unrestrained power. Even the stupid sheep LIKE unrestrained power. So who exactly is going to advocate new limitations on Federal power? Where do you think you are going to find anyone with any clout that really wants more restraint on the plunder machine?

Corrupt politicians LOVE the unrestrained power of deception and manipulation. They will return to selling bridges and used cars alone, because groups of corrupt car salesmen do not do well in business.

The people have the right and capacity with the power (clout) to restrain the plunder machine. Sincere American politicians will gradually at first, then cascade into blocking the plundering.


People might agree on term limits, but that is trivial.

People will agree on term limits and campaign finance reform, and they are both quite important.


A truly balanced budget will ultimately be opposed by everyone who benefits from the largess. And if it passed it would have loopholes you could drive a truck through.

They people are not benefiting in the long term and anyone who has seen the national deficit and what it does to our future knows that. America will have to "tighten the belt" so to speak. But, ending the corruption which has abducted American productivity with GATT and NAFTA will fairly quickly set the economic course back to where it naturally belongs.

Loopholes are the tool of collusion between corrupt government and corporations. The capacity to create those will be gone by the time a general convention gathers. The manifestation of the purpose of free speech is going to educate Americans to the point where they will fully accept certain sacrifices needs to secure the needed dynamics for the future.


The bottom line is that this country is not being screwed over by Congress. The American people are screwing themselves. Congress is just the middleman and a convention would simply be congress writ large.

Explain how congressional nonfeasance and malfeasance related to not counting applications for article V then citizens united ARE NOT congress "screwing over the people".

The American people have been slowly forced into ignorance by elites that know human weaknesses, tendencies, frailties and corruptions. All have been exploited since the act of 1871. You neglect the element of time in your statement. With the people use constitutional intent to control the states, congressional corruption will be nullified during the convention.


The Constitution is being ignored and liberty is being destroyed because the American people either don't care, are too stupid to know, or WANT it that way. Americans are afraid of freedom and love tyranny. We WANT a king. There is nothing at all inherent in a convention that will suddenly restore in the people a love of liberty and hatred of tyranny. And there is no reason to think that convention delegates will be any better quality of statesmen than are our congressmen. A convention will be just another opportunity to legislate our own chains, as we have been doing at an accelerating pace since the first Constitution was ratified.

Bad idea.

I've already said, YOU IGNORE TIME and what it has done to the peoples perceptions. The infiltration has had over 100 years to corrupt people. You do not even know what a king is. No one in our world does. England never knew either. Written history omits that information.

The convention does not restore a love of liberty, the purpose of freedom of speech does. READ. Tyranny is terrifying and people feel that fear descending upon them. They definitely do not want that.

With a relatively small number of Americans articulating constitutional intent, delegates will come from those groups, and the people will KNOW that their delegates will not compromise proposals for amendment and WILL keep the people appraised of state fidelity to the intent of the proposed amendments during ratifications.

The framers did not have the appreciation of the potential for corruption of mass media that the infiltration had and has. Therefore they were not able to guard against it. This is something that is fairly well known now therefore the people can be further educated and reject the manipulations that have corrupted them and instead support the doctrines that will strengthen them while improving their lives.

Have you ever considered that your world view is the result of a pessimistic media indoctrination and conditioning?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

Do you know what "labeling" is? It is a cognitive distortion which is designed to pre-empt understanding.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

If not, consider you are mentally and emotionally disabled from understanding your first constitutional right.

[The Gold Standard]

I'm terrified of what Boobus would be convinced to put in the Constitution if given the chance. But I don't see one bit how it changes anything. They can repeal the whole fucking thing and nothing would change. The Constitution doesn't restrain them at all now. The only thing restraining them is the fear of civil unrest.

[Christopher A. Brown]

He's been listening to Mark Levin and it has warped his brain.

No doubt Levin works to warp perceptions of things. But I expose him by listening to him.

What is Mark Levin saying?

There is one inconsistency, or maybe I'm not hearing him right. Transcribe his basic words when he first addresses state legislators at 9:37 - again at 10:14 ".

He says at 9:37 - again at 10:14 "Less than 70 of you in the same room."

Then at 29:30 to 30:30 he describes many more people involved. The latter situation is what I would expect, the former is what I would worry about IF he is talking about ratification.

I worry because ALEC could easily control a few in 3/4 of the states. Now, because COS invited Levin, it appears that COS is an ALEC financed non profit to try and assemble grassroots support, or deceive it. All efforts to discuss constitutional intent with both ALEC and COS leaders have failed, indicating this speculation may be correct.

In the former he is speaking directly to state legislators encouraging them, in the latter he is ridiculing those that fear a runaway convention.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA

Levin is a hack, and he says two different things about a convention to two different groups in the video, proving his manipulation. In the beginning he says, (this was from someone else's analysis) 2, legislators from 3/4 of the states, 70 people, can get the job done. Then later when dismissing those fearful of a runaway convention he makes it sound like hundreds are involved.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm terrified of what Boobus would be convinced to put in the Constitution if given the chance. But I don't see one bit how it changes anything. They can repeal the whole fucking thing and nothing would change. The Constitution doesn't restrain them at all now. The only thing restraining them is the fear of civil unrest.

Are you speaking of the potus? The president, the congress and the courts will have no say over ratifications when 3/4 of the states are acting.

However, this could work very much against us if ALEC is planing as I think they may have for 20 years, interacting with states the whole time. Basically writing legislation that state legislatures pass word for word. See my last post.

Now there is a serious threat. If we are not proactive with Article V, we will see the constitution re written very much against our interests. It will become the United States of Corporate America with the koch bros. as kings.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

So my point is - fuck it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.

Hah, I love intelligent realists!

Staying where we are is NOT a real solution. Good maxim!

[Christopher A. Brown]

Under this The Bill of Rights well be on the chopping block, along with every thing else.

Only if Americans remain ignorant of constitutional intent.

Otherwise, Americans get to define it AND, alter or abolish, Yee-haw!

[Christopher A. Brown]

What country you living in buddy?

Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?

Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right. Better shut off the TV brother.

No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?

Are you implying that they are "fighting for our freedoms"?

They are enforcing the dictates of the state, and would enforce against us, in a heartbeat.


Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right.

Families? Possibly not. Friends and neighbors? By all means. "Support the Troops" means sending them off to get maimed and killed.


No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.

We're looking at a different set of people I guess.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol

Concepts will become modified and permanently made comprehensive to preservation of the principles of the republic. Your words are an effort to minimize what proper amendment can do.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?


An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.

How would a convention of states controlled by the people of the states WITH the peopes awareness and developed capacity to define constitutional intent constitute "another layer of false legitimacy"?

Having the high ground and making demands means little. Defining the high ground with proper constitutional intent as it is rooted in natural law THEN using law to enforce the law of the land means everything.

THEY? Only if we let them by neglecting our right to do so and be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".


Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.

There is no way to LEGITIMATELY enforce compliance without the states acting. If they are going to act with full authority and permanence it needs to be through Article V.

[The Gold Standard]

Are you speaking of the potus?

No, I'm talking about the people. The illiterate, barely functional human beings you want to entrust with this rewriting of the Constitution. The people that raise money for defense funds for murderous cops after they sleigh unarmed mundanes. The people that think health care is a right. The people that think the evil Muslims are going to come here and institute Sharia law. The people that call the police because their neighbor is doing something that seems suspicious. These miserable, brain dead slime will flock to the conventions when Barack Obama or Jeb Bush or Police Chief Joe Friendly tells them to go support putting universal health care or mandatory disarming of the public in the new Constitution.

You think you are going to educate the likes of this on "constitutional intent"? How? Buy commercials during Dancing with the Stars or whatever the fuck people watch these days? The way to freedom is by education. By getting a large enough minority, that is too large to kill with police, to buy into the message and create the freedom for themselves. Educating a majority of illiterates about constitutional intent? Good luck with that.

[Zippyjuan]

1) Any proposals from an Article V Convention must be approved by 3/4 of states before they can be enacted. Good luck getting 3/4th of states to agree on anything.
2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.
3) A "balanced budget amendment" is the publicized reason to have a convention. But no balanced budgets have been submitted (only Ron and Rand Paul have proposed one) so a balanced budget is not a serious issue. There are other "hidden" reasons for a convention.

One of the things supporters of a ConCon have suggested is making a state's call for a convention "permenant and irrevocable" to try to force a convention. There would be no time limit and a state cannot ever change their mind.

[Christopher A. Brown]

No, I'm talking about the people. The illiterate, barely functional human beings you want to entrust with this rewriting of the Constitution. The people that raise money for defense funds for murderous cops after they sleigh unarmed mundanes. .

I would have to say you are a victim of cognitive distortions. Using a term like "boobus" is labeling. AND, you are guilty of "thinking that others thik like you think" in this realm of activism. That is a socialized acceptance of conditioning from cognitive distortions leaking out.

But, you definitely can think, and think well, just wrongly. Particularly about the capacity of your fellow Americans.

Most likely you have been induced to conduct "emotional reasoning". Firstly, you assert everyone raises money for murderous cops. They don't. A few mislead confused fearful people do and that makes you THINK all Americans do.


The people that think health care is a right. The people that think the evil Muslims are going to come here and institute Sharia law. The people that call the police because their neighbor is doing seems suspicious. These miserable, brain dead slime will flock to the conventions when Barack Obama or Jeb Bush or Police Chief Joe Friendly tells them to go support putting universal health care or mandatory disarming of the public in the new Constitution..

The people you refer to are those mislead by mass media. I won't deny there are a lot of them, however, not so many that they equal those that are silent through the whole debacle you describe. This that are silent know something is wrong, just not "what" it is. What is wrong is that the purpose of free speech is abridged so all of they types of thinking you think are dominant, exist in the first place.

Your words, "miserable, brain dead slime" reek of emotional reasoning.


You think you are going to educate the likes of this on "constitutional intent"? How? Buy commercials during Dancing with the Stars or whatever the fuck people watch these days? The way to freedom is by education. By getting a large enough minority, that is too large to kill with police, to buy into the message and create the freedom for themselves. Educating a majority of illiterates about constitutional intent? Good luck with that.

Are you going to say that the people you dispise are going to abandon their right to alter or abolish government destructive to their vital rights because they are confused? Perhaps, if there were not intelligent and informed Americans to help them to understand.

Your anger and conditioning extends to thinking that somehow Americans can prevail over "police" with violence. They cannot. However, they can educate effectively the people you have contempt for and convert them into people you respect. At that point we are nearing a majority.

You are correct about a large minority, but they do not depend on violence, they depend on history and law along with peoples awareness of what the constitution stands for, then educate the people.

I will be posting about HOW this is done shortly.

The purpose of free speech is to educate The Americans you describe are dependent upon the system the police protect. The police can and will be controlled by their superiors. Remember, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". The congress and the courts can control the police, but wil with have to control the congress and the courts through our states.

[fisharmor]

2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.

How?

Seriously, show me how it could be worse.

[William Tell]

Our elected officials blatantly and utterly ignore the Constitution. Therefore let us change a couple of the words within that Constitution and that will solve everything. Lol

An Article V convention at this point in time can only make things worse, by providing current tyrannical abuses another layer of false legitimacy. Today, we at least have the technical legal high ground, demanding compliance with the Constitution, once they change the Constitution to authorize those abuses, we will have nothing left but our opinion that the government is doing wrong, but only in the moral sense.

Mark my words, if this happens BEFORE we enforce compliance, it will be an unmitigated disaster for those of us who support liberty.

Agreed.

[Zippyjuan]

How?

Seriously, show me how it could be worse.

Perhaps you can show us better Constitutions than the one we have. What in your opinion would make it better and how likely would you judge the chances of those changes occurring?

[69360]

I'm afraid of it. Lepage, my governor is pushing for it. I think he is well intentioned. But once the genie is out of the bottle, who knows what else could get changed besides a balanced budget. It could end very badly.

[56ktarget]

With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2, Google would have never acquired enough capital to build their search engine, and consumers would still be shopping at Walmart rather than ordering products at Amazon.

[69360]

With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2

Not true.

Lets say there is a constitutional convention and a balanced budget amendment passes.

The constitution or amendments to it could be suspended during a declared war.

[Zippyjuan]

Wouldn't that violate the Constitution?

Why not just pass a Balanced Budget law rather than going for an amendment? (they aren't really in favor of having to actually balance a budget- that would require making difficult choices which would upset voters) Calling for an amendment the know won't pass allows them ot claim to be for fiscal responsibility without actually being fiscally responsible.

[fisharmor]

Perhaps you can show us better Constitutions than the one we have. What in your opinion would make it better and how likely would you judge the chances of those changes occurring?

I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I want an Article V convention, and I am not a dupe.
I recognize the inherent "danger" of an A5 convention. I simply disregard it.

As has been already stated, the constitution is already dead letter. No part of it is taken seriously by any of the three branches. The only time it is invoked is to claim a power, most often by torturing the definition of words or twisting meanings so that they are interpreted as something a polar opposite of what is actually written.

The existence of this document just gives the REAL dupes something to aspire to. Something that they think they'll get some day, because damnit, it's written down and we should stick to it. Only nobody ever stuck to it. And they never will.

So its entire purpose is actually to facilitate tyranny. Tyrants are doing as they please, the document is not stopping them - all the document is doing is stopping those who wish to live under those words from taking an active role in fixing this situation. The dupes still think that using the system will work. It won't.

So my point is - fuck it. Trash it. It is counterproductive, and the sooner it is officially recognized as dead letter, the sooner we can discuss real solutions.

Staying where we are is NOT a real solution.

"We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare. Jettisoning the Constitution is a bad idea no matter how you try to spin it. We can enforce it through nullification rather than destroy it through Article V.

[fisharmor]

"We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare.
You misunderstand me.
I don't think we have to do something.
I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.

[NewRightLibertarian]

You misunderstand me.
I don't think we have to do something.
I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.

It will make the tyranny more recognizable because it will be the letter of the law. They'll be able to legitimize all of their insane power grabs, and there won't even be a frame of reference to point to what rights you're supposed to have.

[Christopher A. Brown]

1) Any proposals from an Article V Convention must be approved by 3/4 of states before they can be enacted. Good luck getting 3/4th of states to agree on anything.
2) Scrapping the current Constitution and starting over would not necessarily lead to any improvements. It could be considerably worse.

I'm making a good case for 3/4 accepting that free speech has a purpose, an agreement in its preliminary stages which is focused on prime constitutional intent.

Your perceptions of America are formed by various media, so have the pessimistic bias the infiltrated gov wants the public to have.

Thanks for be such an independent thinker.

The current constitution would not be scrapped. Now you are conducting cognitive distortions of "all or nothing thinking".

See the post about Levin.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471502-After-226-Years-The-House-Passes-Rule-To-Count-Applications-For-An-Article-V-Convention&p=5823130&viewfull=1#post5823130

Your failure to engage using constitutional intent for unity puts his team in control.

Thanks a lot Mr. Independent thinker.

[Christopher A. Brown]

It will make the tyranny more recognizable because it will be the letter of the law. They'll be able to legitimize all of their insane power grabs, and there won't even be a frame of reference to point to what rights you're supposed to have.

fisharmor's point is still valid. Another way to look at combines his perspective with yours when examining what ALEC Is up to.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471502-After-226-Years-The-House-Passes-Rule-To-Count-Applications-For-An-Article-V-Convention&p=5823130&viewfull=1#post5823130

If we are not ready to control states when the time comes, get prepared for another level of bad when the constitution is amended by corporations in control of states.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You misunderstand me.
I don't think we have to do something.
I think that whether the A5 convention happens or not, we'll have tyranny.
Further, that the A5 convention will make that tyranny more easily recognizable, since we will have not only the rule of that law, but the letter of it.
In other words, the perception of how our government is supposed to work will finally align with the reality of how it works.
This can only have a positive effect, since the current constitution's worshipers will realize their god is dead... and has been for centuries.
They will need a new god, and will be willing to listen to reason on the matter.

I think my plan works with your realistic perspective. If covert infiltrators allow themselves to be conditioned by covert infiltrations manipulating them into being fearful of article V, then ALEC may get their way at a convention. I'm working to be pre-emptive of that. But the unity aspect works for other contingencies as well, or "listen to reason on the matter".

[Christopher A. Brown]

"We have to do something" is the mindset that gave us Obamacare. Jettisoning the Constitution is a bad idea no matter how you try to spin it. We can enforce it through nullification rather than destroy it through Article V.

As I've pointed out, ALEC May be getting ready to destroy it through Article V.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471502-After-226-Years-The-House-Passes-Rule-To-Count-Applications-For-An-Article-V-Convention&p=5823130&viewfull=1#post5823130

What Im proposing makes us ready to defend it from their manipulations of states. If we do nothing they will have their way with it.

Any form of unity based in constitutional intent, particularly that free speech has a purpose and it is widely abridged. Just the fact that ALEC motivated states are trying for a convention while the purpose of free speech HAS NEVER fully existed, indicates ALEC is trying to take advantage because the public who has been intentionally kept in the dark about how to oppose illicit corporate power and manipulation cannot participate in assuring all amendments must have constitutional intent.

That one thing could help state legislators who are watching out for the peoples interest by providing an edge reason for stopping inappropriate amendment.

[NewRightLibertarian]

If we are not ready to control states when the time comes, get prepared for another level of bad when the constitution is amended by corporations in control of states.

If the steam picks up for an Article V convention, we should be working to get states to rescind their support and participation not to attempt to control it.

[ClydeCoulter]

I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.

I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.

[heavenlyboy34]

I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.
Overtly, yes. We both know that they subvert the spirit and letter of the piece of parchment routinely, though. "Soft" tyranny is only a bit better than the "hard" variety because it's comfortable enough that it doesn't cause mass uprisings.

[Christopher A. Brown]

If the steam picks up for an Article V convention, we should be working to get states to rescind their support and participation not to attempt to control it.

Yea, if it's ALEC and COS ramming proposals through states not facilitating public input.

And the fact that free speech has a purpose widely abridged preventing the people from participating is a damn good reason to rescind support, and disassociate from the effort.

This agreement upon prime constitutional intent is very powerful and dynamically useful.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I pretty sure that a con-con will result in the 2nd amendment being removed or re-written, and that will result in gun confiscation or war, or both to some degree.

The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.

If ALEC is pushing proposals through state legislations, you are probably right.

ALEC does not want to be accountable to constitutional intent, so any proponent of any proposal can be the rightful target of official inquiry regarding the involvement of the public to show its regard for the matter of constitutional intent.

Since the purpose of free speech is widely abridged, the only way the public can be involved is through proponents of amendments to seek out the public and register their opinions.

As stated, the purpose of free speech is a lawfully valuable tool when it comes to any issue related to the constitution.

This would be even truer if the 2nd amendment was facing revision. Because Americans never had a chance to use the 1st to defend the 2nd.

[fisharmor]

The only thing that keeps any of our "so called representatives" focused on some 2nd amendments rights (partially) is that god damned piece of paper, in it's current state.

You mean like how Mittens gets dressed up in a flannel shirt and carries a 12g around a marsh for an afternoon, in order to show how pro-gun he is?
With a handful of exceptions, this is the depth of support the R team brings to the table. They publicly acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is clearly about duck hunting, and vow to duck hunters that their time-honored tradition will be sacrosanct under their leadership.

But come on, think about what that's saying:

1) The only thing preventing anyone from taking your guns today is people who put together a photo shoot around election time. Just let that sink in a bit... not one of them is on record actually supporting RTKBA.... they put together photo shoots.

2) They therefore obviously think very little of gun owners - rightly so, because these photo-op shenanigans by and large work every election. They aren't nailed to the floor by the constitution - they're casting an illusion on the masses.

3) They're clearly not pro-gun in the way Ron Paul or Larry Pratt is. The number of legislators with a philosophical connection to the right to bear arms is miniscule. They are not pro-gun at all, really - they're just not as vocally anti-gun as their practical identical twins on the other side of the aisle.

4) Therefore the only thing keeping gun rights in tact in this country is anything but the constitution. I mean, that's a given - no legislator will ever come out against NFA '34. Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone publicly oppose GCA '68 nor FOPA '86... nor even background checks. These are all clear, unambiguous arrogations of power regarding firearms, if we're reading the 2nd Amendment faithfully, are they not? How many of our legislators are on record decrying them as clearly unconstitutional?
Is Ron Paul even on record saying this?
Who else?

No, I submit to you the only thing keeping RTKBA intact here is the fact that the likes of John Boehner realizes that he can't make Feinstein-style quotes like "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

If you think for a second that Lindsey Graham would hesitate in the slightest from doing and saying the same thing if he was in a position to get something out of it, I really don't know what to say. The only reason the likes of our "pro-2nd amendment" legislators won't vote for this or say these things is because they know they would be out on their asses in the next election cycle at the earliest.

The constitution doesn't mean shit to these people. This is the game - betray things you say you believe in if you think you stand a good chance of getting something you want even more. John McCain is willing to sell anything to get more brown people killed - who can you point to that will give something up to get gun controls abolished?
More to my point - why does anyone think this is a good way to govern ourselves? Are we taking crazy pills? Why do I need to put more than one post in this thread saying this - any system founded on compromising your ideals means you end up losing ground, our current system is exactly this, so our current system is designed from the ground up to abolish freedom.

Lastly, go back and review the events of April 12, 2014 at the Bundy Ranch. Those are your gun confiscators: chicken shits who can get stared down. Once the illusion of legitimacy is peeled back, and people become emboldened to take what is rightfully theirs, and the illegitimate realize that they might actually clock out early that day, political opinions get changed real quick.

In short, what you see as an objectively worse situation, I still see as progress.

[Todd]

Are you trying to say our soldiers that think they are defending us and our constitution dying over in the ME are cowards?

Are you trying to say that their families would rather see them maimed and dead than speak up with common sense to claim the purpose of free speech as our right. Better shut off the TV brother.

No way. Deceived, yes, but not cowards. Manipulated yes, but not cowards.

What a nice big strawman you built. Nobody said anything about the soldiers now did they.

[Anti Federalist]

Lastly, go back and review the events of April 12, 2014 at the Bundy Ranch.

Those are your gun confiscators: chicken shits who can get stared down.

Once the illusion of legitimacy is peeled back, and people become emboldened to take what is rightfully theirs, and the illegitimate realize that they might actually clock out early that day, political opinions get changed real quick.

Annnnd, have some rep.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.

Your rejection is well founded, but perhaps not complete in how and who the words changed effect.

The people are the problem. This forum is proving it. Americans have no clue of what constitutional intent is, and seem to be unable to even discuss it.

Therefore the words of the draft revision I have written could easily be used by some people, to influence and change the thinking of others, BECAUSE the words were adopted as an amendment to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. Meaning the words are verified by "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". In this case people that understand and define constitutional intent consistent with natural law.


Draft: 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.

"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.


We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.

You have left out the illicit influence of the infiltrated government after 1871. That's leaving out a great deal of corruptive effort upon the peoples thinking and capacity for unity.


I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.

I'm not sorry I provided it, because there are Americans that will pay attention and use the words.


I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.

That point is valid. However is ALEC ends up hijacking a convention, it could get worse.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Strawman post


What a nice big strawman you built. Nobody said anything about the soldiers now did they.

A strawman is not defined by mention of facts, it is defined by the ease of dismissing what is presented as fact but then shown as invalid.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Annnnd, have some rep.

I'm not convinced that entire thing was not theatre. Secret government has lots of branches, and none can see the roots feeding them.

[The Gold Standard]

Instead of trying to convince us that this is worthwhile, why aren't you out convincing Boobus that they have these rights that you speak of and they know nothing about? If the public was already smart enough to know that, we wouldn't need a convention anyway.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Are you implying that they are "fighting for our freedoms"?

They think they are. Deceived and manipulated.


They are enforcing the dictates of the state, and would enforce against us, in a heartbeat.

You left out what the state is, INFILTRATED at the civil war, the act of 1871 marks the transition. There is an element of all or nothing thinking there, as if ALL of them would turn their guns on Americans. I think not.

The infiltrated government would like an army like that and has been working towards it, but it has not succeeded yet.


Families? Possibly not. Friends and neighbors? By all means. "Support the Troops" means sending them off to get maimed and killed.

You are trying to use cognitive distortions of over generalization and all or nothing thinking and emotional reasoning.


We're looking at a different set of people I guess.

No, same set, but without the cognitive distortions in my optimistic view. By revising the 1st amendment, and assuring unity can be enabled by education, re education, there is an official guide to what free speech is for. By its proper use justice can be created, With that, a great deal you would never believe possible can happen. All good.

Your view proves, "We can't get there from here".

[Christopher A. Brown]

Instead of trying to convince us that this is worthwhile, why aren't you out convincing Boobus that they have these rights that you speak of and they know nothing about? If the public was already smart enough to know that, we wouldn't need a convention anyway.

Catch 22.

I'm looking for Americans that care about the future of the American people, have brains and simple social courage to make an agreement which has mass potentials for impact.

I'm, also here because the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Dept. failed to appear on subpoena. Collusion with the county counsel who interfered with the appearance of the witness by compelling them to lie in their letter.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/cv06_comp/cv06_comp.exhib/subdengif.gif

A declaration from the person who called me from the jail to inform me of the arrest and booking records subpoenaed. The declaration proves the subpoenaed records were in the counties possession 1 year before being subpoenaed.

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/images/skuse.jpg

If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.

Needless to say, the purpose of free speech would have been manifested by my economic ability to create unity by sharing its purpose and the nation would be in a completely different, far better place.

What happened instead was they failed to appear, the prejudiced complicit judge would not find them in contempt as requested. Then continued deprivations of justice through 9 lawsuits basically proved boobus is more influenced by social influence than by facts, law, or common sense, because I informed boobus at each juncture of the deprivations of right and obstruction of justice the courts, county and press (http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html) were doing. Boobus here at the forum is more influenced by the social environment and conditioning of memes to make a simple agreement that is common sense regarding the purpose of free speech. Boobus is eating shit because of it.

The question is; "Will these facts mean anything to you or will you simply continue to party with boobus?"

[Zippyjuan]

If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.

That's pretty funny! All because you wanted some arrest records from the 1800's seventeen years ago.

[CPUd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Dk2rvFYjI

[Christopher A. Brown]

That's pretty funny! All because you wanted some arrest records from the 1800's seventeen years ago.

You are attempting a cognitive distortion of "minimizing". I needed those records and by law was due them or an appearance of the subpoenaed custodian of records explaining under oath why the records were not available.

It is a logical fact that laws protect lives.

Covert infiltrating manipulating agents would attempt that kind of distortion in this case.

Yes, the records would have verified my story/history and treatment direct to the unconscious mind as exceedingly potent for mental health care.
My verified past would sell books, would get film deals. The arrest and booking records and what they prove add weight and reason for book sales and or film as well as original music.

In all we are talking exposure, publicity which shares the potential for unconscious control of humans, which is really how we all operate naturally, but exposing the potentials for illicit government secrecy and massive conspiracy. That really threatens exposure of conspiracy, stopping conspiracy.

The arrest and booking records would have provided proof to psychology that working with the human unconscious directly was possible, viable and effective. Which then immediately would have turned into clinical trial upon drug addicts and alcoholics. It would then be adapted to phobias, depression, OCD and BPD. After that schizophrenia. Probably 30% can be all but cured.

Yea dude, America got ripped off when my rights were violated. Not just me.

My rights are your rights. We share our rights.

[paleocon1]

With a balanced budget dogma, the United States would never have won WW2, .....................

The world would be a far better place had not the American version of fascism- FDR's democrats baited Japan into war.

[idiom]

Do you know what "labeling" is? It is a cognitive distortion which is designed to pre-empt understanding.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

If not, consider you are mentally and emotionally disabled from understanding your first constitutional right.

If unity adequate to alter or abolish over-reaching government existed, then we wouldn't be here.

There is barely unity adequate to agree on a single date to raise money.

And yet you have the audacity to call others disabled?

[Christopher A. Brown]

If unity adequate to alter or abolish over-reaching government existed, then we wouldn't be here.

There is barely unity adequate to agree on a single date to raise money.

And yet you have the audacity to call others disabled?

You must not have been reading.

The purpose of free speech IS to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish. That purpose has been abidged since about one generation or a little more after the revolutionary war.

The 1st amendment is deficient which left the door open for economic power of the press and partisan politics to slowly divide Americans and then disable them perceptually from understanding the division as well as constitutional intent, such as the purpose of free speech.

Adding to this, history has been strategically misrepresented over and over.

You can prove you are not disabled from working with other Americans to form unity by posting now, your agreement and acceptance of the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

Or maybe you think the framers didn't really intend for us to be able to alter or abolish.

Or maybe you can define another feasible way to create the needed unity.

It's up to you. Show your stuff.

[idiom]

You must not have been reading.

The purpose of free speech IS to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish. That purpose has been abidged since about one generation or a little more after the revolutionary war.

The 1st amendment is deficient which left the door open for economic power of the press and partisan politics to slowly divide Americans and then disable them perceptually from understanding the division as well as constitutional intent, such as the purpose of free speech.

Adding to this, history has been strategically misrepresented over and over.

You can prove you are not disabled from working with other Americans to form unity by posting now, your agreement and acceptance of the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

Or maybe you think the framers didn't really intend for us to be able to alter or abolish.

Or maybe you can define another feasible way to create the needed unity.

It's up to you. Show your stuff.

The thread is about an article V convention. Such a convention is a tool for the states to use when the federal government is not fulfilling the will of the people and is years away from an election cycle.

At the moment it is very much following the will of the people.

There exists plenty of free speech, it is providing adequate unity to alter the government, but it is doing it in favour of violating rights.

Free Speech is enabling the over-reach without the need of tanks in the streets.

Meanwhile:


If the sheriffs dept. had lawfully appeared with the records, I would be a millionaire today. There would have been at least 2 feature films, a 1/2 dozen books and 2 musical albums. A treatment direct to the unconscious mind would have been developed by 2000, the secret government would not have been able to pull off 9/11, because what is unconscious is better than secret, so it wouldn't have happened.

Needless to say, the purpose of free speech would have been manifested by my economic ability to create unity by sharing its purpose and the nation would be in a completely different, far better place.

Messiah complex, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, persecution complex.



The governments failure to provide one document to you personally changed the course of history, enabling 9/11, Katrina, three wars, the patriot act and the NSA over-reach, the creation of the TSA, the Tarp, the bailouts?


If you are wrong then maybe things to keep under your hat in public.

If you are right then the guilt of millions of innocent lives is on your shoulder for failing to get a better lawyer, or fight harder, or break in and retreive the documents, or outright bribe a deputy. Plenty of people would have funded such an effort, but you failed the entire world.

An article V convention is going to do what? Propose an amendment banning secret governments and mind control?

The free press is working just fine in other countries and governments are getting smaller. Americans want a bigger government. A majority of the population is scamming a minority. Its not even unconscious.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The first thing the thread about is congressional neglect, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Not Article V itself.

You have not been reading or do not read well.


The thread is about an article V convention.

There exists plenty of free speech, it is providing adequate unity to alter the government,

Yea, but the speech cannot have the meaning that it needs to when related to constitutional intent . . . Violated.

If it was true, I would not have to post here in an effort to see the purpose of unity manifest to actually execute the right to alter or abolish.

Your posting reeks of covert manipulation because you have evaded the question regarding purpose.

Try again.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[acptulsa]

He who does not write well does one of three things. He learns to write. He hires a writer. Or he accuses the whole world of not reading well...

[Christopher A. Brown]

He who does not write well does one of three things. He learns to write. He hires a writer. Or he accuses the whole world of not reading well...

Off topic is either a failure to indentify the topic, it an effort to change it.

The topic is the neglect, non feasance or malfeasance of congress which could actually be called treason if one examined all of things states were trying stop the federal government from doing that were unconstitutional.

Hah! Infiltrating ad hominium. Read this and respond like an American that seeks to preserve the constitution, or be one against it.

Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[Zippyjuan]

Your rejection is well founded, but perhaps not complete in how and who the words changed effect.

The people are the problem. This forum is proving it. Americans have no clue of what constitutional intent is, and seem to be unable to even discuss it.

Therefore the words of the draft revision I have written could easily be used by some people, to influence and change the thinking of others, BECAUSE the words were adopted as an amendment to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. Meaning the words are verified by "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". In this case people that understand and define constitutional intent consistent with natural law.


Draft: 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.

"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.



You have left out the illicit influence of the infiltrated government after 1871. That's leaving out a great deal of corruptive effort upon the peoples thinking and capacity for unity.



I'm not sorry I provided it, because there are Americans that will pay attention and use the words.



That point is valid. However is ALEC ends up hijacking a convention, it could get worse.

So you would like a Constitutional Convention to change it so everybody will have to be nice to each other.


"forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" are elements that tend to create or make unity possible. That will change a lot.

[Christopher A. Brown]

So you would like a Constitutional Convention to change it so everybody will have to be nice to each other.

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

[Ender]

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

[Zippyjuan]

Another cognitive distortion, all or nothing thinking, minimization, misrepresenting how an ancient philosophical doctrine can provide guidance in the creation of unity adequate to alter or abolish.

You have no interest in defense of the constitution if you are posting as you are.

If your intent is to defend the Constitution, why call for a convention to change it?

[Christopher A. Brown]

If your intent is to defend the Constitution, why call for a convention to change it?

It has deficiencies that make it and us vulnerable to usurpation. The constitution can defend itself IF we are capable of using its intent to do so.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

You leave out the infiltration/takeover of the act of 1871 which was the real problem.

Earlier the states realized that loyalists were lurking and working to take over. That was what the original 13th amendment was designed to stop. Which disappeared with the act of 1871.

[GunnyFreedom]

Any Constitutional convention could propose it's own, novel method of ratification. Like it did in 1786. So there is a real danger from subversion of the process to weaken our Constitution. Imagine putting the Constitution up to a popular vote. What terrible powers could politicians put into the Constitution by persuasion of the voters?

The real danger to come from one of these things is if they propose an alternative ratification procedure. This will act to subvert and overthrow our current Constitution, and work to replace it with something altered or new. Whether it has it or not, it is presumed by a great many that an Article 5 convention has the power to propose alternative ratification processes just like the original Constitutional Convention did when we proposed a new Constitution.

There are some very real dangers in this. There is even a plausible nightmare scenario or two, but I still think a lot of the danger is exaggerated. I mean, I guess I'm a little OK with that because I don't want an Article 5 either, and they can be dangerous, and people only seem to move in emotional extremes.

Regardless, the 'thing to look for' which will make an Article 5 convention very very dangerous, are alternative ratification procedures. Any hint of that and you know they are up to no good. A really sharp eye on the proceedings in depth will help to avert any serious crisis. Ron Paul demonstrated there was enough of a liberty network left to raise hell, and this would be right up our bailiwick.

Another problem, is the very people with the mass appeal to move democratic amendments to the Constitution are not the people you want amending it. This is so because every one of leadership is in hock to those who put them there. We live in an age where the most effective legislators are equivalent to the most bought. And sold out. What sort of changes will they support in the COnstitution? WHat sort of delegates will they appoint?

I am not opposed to an Article 5 on principle, there are grounds when I can see it as proper. This is really not it. The governments are all mad. Most of the people are mad. The interest-movers and the money-makers are all mad. We are descending into chaos and almost no part of the society is innocent of contributing to the chaos. The people with the most influence contributing the most. That is just, the wrong environment of a Constitutional Convention altogether. If there is a danger in it, in that environment is is magnified exponentially. It's really asking for trouble. And that trouble if it comes could be really big trouble.

[Zippyjuan]

It has deficiencies that make it and us vulnerable to usurpation. The constitution can defend itself IF we are capable of using its intent to do so.

Part of its strength is its flexibility. It did not outline everything a government could and could not do but set up a framework of how laws should be passed, representatives chosen, and how they should interact. It established the structure- not the content. That was left to the future to decide. The fact that people are not always "unified" (which you have often mentioned as a goal) is a sign of strength too. That people are allowed to have different ideas and opinions and that those ideas can be freely discussed without worrying about upsetting somebody else in the name of "unity".

[heavenlyboy34]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

+rep

[GunnyFreedom]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

Amending it is irrelevant while it is held in it's current state of derision.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Obviously, the Constitution has not worked. The States were afraid of that and demanded the Bill of Rights- but even that did not stop big government.

The contract has been under secret attack since before the Declaration of Independence. Loyalist moles have been in every corner compromising the tools of freedom at each juncture. With the civil war "divide and conquer" worked. Then the act of 1871.

Big government got its start there.

Fear begins with the church protecting secrecy created with fear of the potentail abuses of the unconscious mind. The stuff missing from the picture changes the picture a lot after it returns. All Americans need is to want it to return.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Amending it is irrelevant while it is held in it's current state of derision.

Thats all in YOUR head Gunny, and the loyalists love you for sharing it.

In case you haven't figured it out "it" doesn't matter, we matter. All we need to do is know what is right and start doing it.

Unity WILL alter and abolish. The ultimate purpose of free speech is obviously our tool because it can cross most divisions.

Willful ignorance and unreasonable fears are the only real barriers.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Any Constitutional convention could propose it's own, novel method of ratification. Like it did in 1786. So there is a real danger from subversion of the process to weaken our Constitution. Imagine putting the Constitution up to a popular vote. What terrible powers could politicians put into the Constitution by persuasion of the voters?

I've not seen one proposal to change ratification procedures. My take on that is that it is too obviously unconstitutional. It lacks authority. No state or entity wants the blame of proposing or allowing that.


The real danger to come from one of these things is if they propose an alternative ratification procedure. This will act to subvert and overthrow our current Constitution, and work to replace it with something altered or new. Whether it has it or not, it is presumed by a great many that an Article 5 convention has the power to propose alternative ratification processes just like the original Constitutional Convention did when we proposed a new Constitution.

The safest thing is perfecting the constitution we have by revision of existing concepts to make them more functional or enforceable.
My proposal is that we let Article V itself guide by first working for an environment where all proposals have constitutional intent.

Hence the concept of "Preparatory Amendment". It makes a great deal of sense for America to prepare for its most important political event ever to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.
This IS the right thing to do. As the rightful masters of the congress and the courts we simply, justifiably start doing it.

First end the abridging of the purpose of free speech by revising the 1st amendment.

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.

Then secure the vote by amending assuring each state has fully accountable electoral systems and the final count tally is well monitored.

Then campaign finance reform.

After a period and the public testing itself or its ability to agree upon constitutional intent. States proposals are examined by delegates elected by the people of the states.

Congressional non feasance for 226 years justifies this.


There are some very real dangers in this. There is even a plausible nightmare scenario or two, but I still think a lot of the danger is exaggerated. I mean, I guess I'm a little OK with that because I don't want an Article 5 either, and they can be dangerous, and people only seem to move in emotional extremes.

I see our neglect to assuring constitutional intent with what ALEC and COS are going after 20 years (ALEC) lobbying states as a much more real threat and I can produce Mark Levins 34 minute speech of December 4, 2014, (video) at an ALEC sponsored event to give that fear substance. He's says two different things relating to the security of ratification to state legislators in the beginning, then those fearful of a runaway at the end.


Regardless, the 'thing to look for' which will make an Article 5 convention very very dangerous, are alternative ratification procedures. Any hint of that and you know they are up to no good. A really sharp eye on the proceedings in depth will help to avert any serious crisis. Ron Paul demonstrated there was enough of a liberty network left to raise hell, and this would be right up our bailiwick.

Good reason to unabridge the purpose of free speech which also corrects media to a substantial degree.


Another problem, is the very people with the mass appeal to move democratic amendments to the Constitution are not the people you want amending it. This is so because every one of leadership is in hock to those who put them there. We live in an age where the most effective legislators are equivalent to the most bought. And sold out. What sort of changes will they support in the Constitution? What sort of delegates will they appoint?

Which is why preparatory amendment must be forced by a population unified demanding preparation assuring constitutional intent.


I am not opposed to an Article 5 on principle, there are grounds when I can see it as proper. This is really not it. The governments are all mad. Most of the people are mad. The interest-movers and the money-makers are all mad. We are descending into chaos and almost no part of the society is innocent of contributing to the chaos. The people with the most influence contributing the most. That is just, the wrong environment of a Constitutional Convention altogether. If there is a danger in it, in that environment is is magnified exponentially. It's really asking for trouble. And that trouble if it comes could be really big trouble.

The peoples control over that environment is exactly what I would hope to see. If the people do not work to develop what it takes to control it, then the entire process could be easily hijacked. That is what I'm trying to do, prepare us to intervene and assure constitutional intent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Oh yea, Americans are seriously distracted by massive cognitive infiltration crying, "problem, problem, problem".

And the fact that congress has basically admitted that it has been in violation of Americans first constitutional right the people can involve themselves with, goes un noticed. Lost in the chafe of endless sensation of the many problems created by the infiltrated government.

Of course the covert infiltrators of the forum will accelerate their subterfuge and posting in subjects NOT RELEVANT to solution, potent opposition to the governmental infiltration, when a thread like this one comes along.

Wake up people, you are getting scammed on every page of the forum.

[mosquitobite]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

They were probably the same people fooled by all the supposed "non-establishment" candidates in 2012. Lol!

[idiom]

This forum is over run by loyalist moles? Not Jews? Not Neo-Nazis? Not Alien Overlords?

Loyalists?

Wow.

Also my last post directly addressed your posts, your reply completely ignored mine.


The population is not distracted, or misinformed. The population likes the status quo. The majority is looting the minority. Until the minority goes bankrupt and the theft collapses, that isn't going to change.

[GunnyFreedom]

I do not oppose an Article V on general principle. There are amendments I would love to see that could only come from an Article V. My primary point is that at this time it would be exceedingly dangerous, because the political will is largely towards 'moar biger nanny goobermint' and amending the Constitution via Article V in that environment will necessarily lead to more, bigger, nanny government. For an Article V convention to be ultimately successful, you need a population and a set of convention delegates who actually respect the Constitution in the first place. Assuming for the sake of argument that we do manage to successfully flip a little over 100 million Americans into a Constitutionalist position in the next 24 to 48 months, what about the delegates? What are their philosophies and who gets to pick to send them?

Will it not in most cases be their seated General Assemblies?

Have you seen some of the bizarre Article V calls coming out of Hawaii?

Upon what sort of principles will people hand chosen by these bodies operate?

There is a real and valid use and purpose for an Article V, but you need a political will towards Constitutionalism, and local legislators willing to cooperate with that political will. Then, measures can be proposed which Congress would never dare to propose. Such as making the violation of one's Oath of Office a federal felony.

This is the kind of thing I would love to see:


"All persons in any political jurisdiction within the United States and her outlying territories, who shall swear or affirm the Constitutional Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, shall if found in violation of that oath be guilty of a federal felony against the United States of America. The degree of the felony shall be concordant with the degree of violation, from minor up to a capital offense. Charges for elected officials may only be brought by a petition of 1/8 of the citizens residing in that individual's district, and a Grand Jury to adjudicate the offense will be composed of 144 persons from within the district and a threshold for a guilty verdict being 3/4 of the members voting guilty. Charges for non-elected officials who have sworn or affirmed the oath, shall be brought by petition of 1/6 of the municipality or county, or 1/8 of the State that represents the area in which the person's chain of command operates, and a Grand Jury to adjudicate the offense will be composed of 144 persons from within that same area and a threshold for a guilty verdict being 3/4 of the members voting guilty."

I know better than to imagine such an Amendment would come from Congress, if it will ever exist, it could only come from an Article V Convention. I also know better than to imagine that such an Amendment could ever come from an Article V convention held today. Like it or not, the current general electoral environment is toxic towards any kind of beneficial reforms whatever, and the set of "whomever the Legislators will pick" to represent our States in an Article V convention will be even worse.

I do not oppose an Article V on principle. I have an Amendment myself which I would like to see and can only be proposed by an Article V. However, I also know that in this current environment, an Article V Convention can only possibly do harm. Therefore do not do it. Thus I oppose all efforts to hold an Article V Convention until the environment changes in a way that will be conducive to promoting beneficial reforms.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

They were probably the same people fooled by all the supposed "non-establishment" candidates in 2012. Lol!

You missed the most important part preventing any "duping" and assuring the people are in control.

By doing that you play into the potential mass corporate scheme of using state legislators who are bought and paid for to ram a convention through without the people having any say whatsoever.

Preparatory amendment ASSURES all amendments have constitutional intent, just like I posted.



My proposal is that we let Article V itself guide by first working for an environment where all proposals have constitutional intent.


WTF, why don't you like constitutional intent. Explain yourself.

[GunnyFreedom]

You missed the most important part preventing any "duping" and assuring the people are in control.

By doing that you play into the potential mass corporate scheme of using state legislators who are bought and paid for to ram a convention through without the people having any say whatsoever.

Preparatory amend ASSURES all amendments have constitutional intent, just like I posted.

WTF, why don't you like constitutional intent. Explain yourself.

And some stool-pigeon appointed by Boehner's right-hand man in Ohio is going to know what about Constitutional intent?

[Christopher A. Brown]

I do not oppose an Article V on general principle. There are amendments I would love to see that could only come from an Article V. My primary point is that at this time it would be exceedingly dangerous,


No, not with preparatory amendment assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

No amendments are made until the nation of people can agree, and show they DO know and can define constitutional intent BECAUSE that most important action only occurs after proper preparation, which is VERY reasonable.

Address this aspect of preparation before any amendment except preparation has been allowed time to have effect.

[Christopher A. Brown]

And some stool-pigeon appointed by Boehner's right-hand man in Ohio is going to know what about Constitutional intent?

This about the people being prepared to define constitutional
Intent, not about the pimps currently in office.

Get back on topic.

Cease evading.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, not with preparatory amendment assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

No amendments are made until the nation of people can agree, and show they DO know and can define constitutional intent BECAUSE that most important action only occurs after proper preparation, which is VERY reasonable.

Address this aspect of preparation before any amendment except preparation has had time to have effect.

And the Convention will appoint Christopher A. Brown to enforce the intent of this Amendment?

[Christopher A. Brown]

And the Convention will appoint Christopher A. Brown to enforce the intent of this Amendment?

Manipulative misrepresentation in effort to evade.

Does the notion that free speech have the purpose of enabling unity sound like constitutional Intent?

[GunnyFreedom]

Manipulative misrepresentation in effort to evade.

Does the notion that free speech have the purpose of enabling unity sound like constitutional Intent?

I'm not the one trying to evade. My inquiry from the start has been direct. My position is clear. You cannot put enough people into an Article V convention today who already respect Constitutional intent, for such an amendment to have any meaning at all.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Gunny, if not a covert agent attempting to manipulate perceptions of the fundamentally lawful approach to constitutional enforcement put forth here, is exactly the ignorant product the infiltrating elite of the government hoped would develop while waiting 226 years to start counting applications.

Hard to believe anyone that ignorant wouldn't figure it out and stfu rather than looking like someone that does not like the constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, if not a covert agent attempting to manipulate perceptions of the fundamentally lawful approach to constitutional enforcement put forth here, is exactly the ignorant product the infiltrating elite of the government hoped would develop while waiting 226 years to start counting applications.

Hard to believe anyone that ignorant wouldn't figure it out and stfu rather than looking like someone that does not like the constitution.

How are you going to guarantee that only those who do like the Constitution attend this convention?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Anyone who wants an Article V convention is a dupe. Plain and simple.

What you've said is that anyone who wants to use their first constitutional right they can use to protect other rights, has been decieved.

Explain yourself. Sounds to me like you are against the notion of the constitution providing right to defend itself through the people.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Part of its strength is its flexibility.

Look agent zip. I realize you are trying to distract from my efforts to show agent gunny is actually against constitutional intent, as you are as well, but the thread is about specificity of congressional neglect, why, what did it serve and how to NOT allow that treasonous act to interfere with American efforts to defend the constitution with its flexibility is the topic here. I know you want to rally your BS to try and interfere with peoples cognition of what I'm sharing.
But that flexibility also empowers Americand to demand preparation for Article PARTICULARLY because congress violated the constitution, their oath and the law for so long without calling one.


That people are allowed to have different ideas and opinions and that those ideas can be freely discussed without worrying about upsetting somebody else in the name of "unity".

Are you saying constitutional intent doesn't matter if people have different opinions they want to discuss?

The elite infiltrators of government love you for working to prevent Americans from focusing on lawful constitutional intent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The lack of accountability and that fact these posters do not mind being referred to as "agents" indicates they ARE agents.

Any sincere American would defend their reputation here. Agents depend on their false social group to appear as if they are above having to be answerable or accountable.

The false group operates on the nazi "big lie" theory of goehring and hitler.

The notion that so many members of the forum are agents is "too big of lie for them to tell", and they've been here long enough to resemble "community" in the sense of a forum so appear to have their own social structure. There are enough of them and their various false personas are credibly designed so "appear" to be real Americans.

NO!

Agenda is what it is.

I can tell fairly well the real Americans. By no means absolutely. But only because the false society has delimited what is the "normal" posting pattern, attitude, behavior etc. the sincere Americans actually care about their reputation and the false society will take an "attitude" about them and marginalize their "social standing" or "fitting in" . Accordingly the sincere Americans hesitate to align with someone that is regularly put down by the false group of covert, manipulating agents.

[acptulsa]

The lack of accountability and that fact these posters do not mind being referred to as "agents" indicates they ARE agents.

LOL

You consider everyone but yourself to be an agent.

The boy is crying wolf again. *yawn*

If it makes you feel any better, two or three of the people you have identified as 'agents' really are. Of course, when you call everyone an agent, that's bound to happen.

[Christopher A. Brown]

LOL

You consider everyone but yourself to be an agent.

The boy is crying wolf again. *yawn*

If it makes you feel any better, two or three of the people you have identified as 'agents' really are. Of course, when you call everyone an agent, that's bound to happen.

Explain why an agent of the infiltrating force of U.S. Government and society would work to create unity under the Declaration of Independence and constitution as I am doing.

Lurkers; Note gunny or sgt150 has not yet explained why they are against Americans defining constitutional intent. All gunnys has done is try to say I'm trying to appoint myself as the one defining that intent in an ad hominium effort. Note that not one of them has addressed the effect of PREPARATORY AMENDMENT upon an Article V convention, no matter how many times I ask for such. IT is logical agents would NEVER mention preparatory amendment because the first preparation is to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech. That ends the infiltrations control over public opinion with controlled media being the only source of info to the masses.

Mr. Pistol, there's this about your various organizations histories.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.

[GunnyFreedom]

LOL

You consider everyone but yourself to be an agent.

The boy is crying wolf again. *yawn*

If it makes you feel any better, two or three of the people you have identified as 'agents' really are. Of course, when you call everyone an agent, that's bound to happen.

LOL no, no I am an agent, you see. A free agent, but now that's just getting picky. :D

[Christopher A. Brown]

A sincere AMERICAN poster made this thread linked below, sincere because the nature of this thread is something a covert agent would not want discussed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472843-The-State-Needs-Willing-Servants-To-Do-Its-Dirty-Work&p=5844892

I post some of the history of my efforts here in that thread to use constitutional intent to filter out the covert manipulators.

Because of fear, fear of the government, NSA, etc. sincere Americans will not come forward and unify online. The infiltrators of course have no fear of the NSA observing the agents collusive, treasonous efforts to defeat Sincere American efforts to unify around the prime constitutional intent of the ultimate purpose of free speech.

Accordingly it's going to require some courage on the part if sincere Americans to realize no one targeted for "disappearance" or anything else like that by working to unify and alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

As bad as it gets is something like the Tea party IRS discrimination. So find your patriotic courage Americans and be vigilant to any retaliatory act by any official agency or department that discriminates against you.

Do not be afraid to complain that such action is quite likely the result of retaliatory action by the infiltration of government agencies by unconstitutional, treasonous, covert groups. More and more you will find sincere and good government employees accepting such complaint.

[Christopher A. Brown]

LOL no, no I am an agent, you see. A free agent, but now that's just getting picky. :D

Now the rally of BS starts as an evasion.

If you were not evading you would be explaining why you are against Americans using their constitutional rights to defend the constitution.

You would be addressing the logical effect of PREPARATORY AMENDMENT; ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech, securing the vote and reforming campaign finance.

Instead you are performing EXACTLY as a treasonous agent of the infiltrated government would.

Cease evasion, be accountable or be a covert manipulating agent. The choice is yours.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The thread is about an article V convention. Such a convention is a tool for the states to use when the federal government is not fulfilling the will of the people and is years away from an election cycle.

At the moment it is very much following the will of the people..

No, it is about congress and it's violation of the constitution, their oaths, and the law.

If you could prove that you knew the will of the people, your statement might mean something.

Article V has nothing to do with elections.


There exists plenty of free speech, it is providing adequate unity to alter the government, but it is doing it in favour of violating rights.

Free Speech is enabling the over-reach without the need of tanks in the streets.

Show us that unity adequate to alter or abolish government that IS destructive to our unalienable rights.

Everyone knows the military has provided tanks for the police to take into the streets. Are you advocating Americans do not unify to oppose such?


TMeanwhile:
Messiah complex, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, persecution complex.

The governments failure to provide one document to you personally changed the course of history, enabling 9/11, Katrina, three wars, the patriot act and the NSA over-reach, the creation of the TSA, the Tarp, the bailouts?

Since the purpose of free speech is abridged, and that of the press here,

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

When the sheriffs dept. Failed to appear, the facts of the potentials for abuse of the unconscious mind was kept secret.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/cv06_comp/cv06_comp.exhib/subdengif.gif

Between that and the massive deprivation of rights in courts, impoverishing me, depriving me of evidence needed to get competent legal counsel, the right to free speech was nullified by economics and the face of massive cognitive infiltration, on the web.

You work to further diminish it as a covert manipulator infiltrating a forum intended to support the restoration of constitutional government.


TIf you are wrong then maybe things to keep under your hat in public.

If you are right then the guilt of millions of innocent lives is on your shoulder for failing to get a better lawyer, or fight harder, or break in and retreive the documents, or outright bribe a deputy. Plenty of people would have funded such an effort, but you failed the entire world.

But I am not wrong, and my site proves beyond any doubt debilitating deprivations of constitutional right and due process for 17 years.

http://algoxy.com/law


TAn article V convention is going to do what? Propose an amendment banning secret governments and mind control?

Get serious agent.


TThe free press is working just fine in other countries and governments are getting smaller. Americans want a bigger government. A majority of the population is scamming a minority. Its not even unconscious.

You cannot prove Americans want a bigger government. That is an empty claim. Threads here show the opposite.

Your statement about a majority scamming a minority cannot be proven. It is false.

Your post is empty of fact and serves the scam of infiltrated government supporting hat government in the demise of the constitution.

If that was not true, you would recognize the deprivation of right the failure to appear on subpoena was in 1998. You would recognize that court case files are the most important records any society can keep.

The subpoenaed arrest and booking records were in the possession of the sheriffs dept one year before they ere subpoenaed.

http://algoxy.com/missingknowledge/images/skuse.jpg

Had the subpoenaed records appeared lawfully, it would have proven over 1,000 court case files were absent from the record. That, would have changed a great deal, because they were all insanity actions.

BTW, did you know that Santa Barbara has had 22 people killed by 4 murderers since 2001? All within 4 miles of each other?

Your mentality is that mentality responsible for those deaths and all of 9/11, whereas my actions have always tried to stop such tragedy.

But your actions here, welcome more.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I thought I was pretty clear that I reject the notion that words on paper have any chance of fixing anything here.
We have what we have in spite of and in direct contravention of the constitution you're referencing.
I'm not asking what would make a better completely ignored set of words.
I'm asking how it will be worse than what we have now, if we have a slightly differently worded completely ignored set of words.

Of course you refer to enforcement of the existing words or constitution.

I think that many have the same concerns, and, by amendment, the federal government, under the force of law imposed by states, could be barred from ignoring the constitution and would suffer consequences for doing so.

Such consequences would be widespread impeachments by senators who are states representatives. If you access the lawful and peaceful revolution thread,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

You will see it starts with citizens exerting control over states by using the intent of the federal constitution. Basically enforcing the constitution by proving that no official who does not recognize its intent can continue to hold office in this constitutional emergency.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Now the rally of BS starts as an evasion.

If you were not evading you would be explaining why you are against Americans using their constitutional rights to defend the constitution.

You would be addressing the logical effect of PREPARATORY AMENDMENT; ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech, securing the vote and reforming campaign finance.

Instead you are performing EXACTLY as a treasonous agent of the infiltrated government would.

Cease evasion, be accountable or be a covert manipulating agent. The choice is yours.

Still waiting for accountability for your behaviors guns.

Explain what you are doing that will defend the constitution.

Its far easier to explain that what you are doing is against the constitution.

[Christopher A. Brown]

LOL no, no I am an agent, you see. A free agent, but now that's just getting picky. :D

But not free enough to state your agreement or acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech.

What sacrifice is there in agreeing that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[GunnyFreedom]

But not free enough to state your agreement or acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech.

What sacrifice is there in agreeing that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

That is indeed one of many reasons for the freedom of speech, which also includes other reasons like the freedom to express religious beliefs and proselytize without being thrown in jail, the freedom to discuss 'dangerous' political beliefs without becoming a political prisoner, and the freedom to read controversial literature without the author landing in a 5x8 cell.

You have confused your ego with the issue at hand. Just because someone dismisses you out of hand because of your insufferable ego does not have any impact whatsoever about their philosophy of government. Indeed, I, and many others who might well agree that the purpose you describe is one of the many purposes of free speech, will reject your proposals on purpose just because it is enjoyable to annoy someone who thinks he's holier than thou.

Who knows how many dozens, or even scores of souls have beliefs that are wholly compatible with yours, but threw them right back in your face because of how you let your ego get in the way.

You are way too high on yourself to be doing the kind of work you think you should be doing here. If you want to share some kind of bold insight as to the nature and purpose of free speech, and you have any hope of getting anywhere with it at all, then you are going to have to learn humility.

[Christopher A. Brown]

That is indeed one of many reasons for the freedom of speech,

Agent, we are discussing methods of preserving the constitution and using unity around constitutional intent to do it.

You can pretend to not understand in an effort to change the subject from explaining the sacrifice you would supposedly make by agreeing that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish, but attempting to do so just further exposes you. Like you just did.

[GunnyFreedom]

There he goes calling me an 'agent' again lmao :D

And you wonder why nobody wants to take your baited hook?

[Occam's Banana]

There he goes calling me an 'agent' again lmao :D

And you wonder why nobody wants to take your baited hook?

Seems to me like a "cog-infil agent of the NWO" (or whatever) would be busting a lung shouting about how he's really just a "sincere" American who agrees with the "ultimate purpose of free speech" (or whatever).

I mean, that's exactly the sort of thing that "infiltrators" are, by definition, supposed to do, ain't it?

And if that's the case, then who's the "agent" here?

Hmmmmmmmm ...

[GunnyFreedom]

Seems to me like a "cog-infil agent of the NWO" (or whatever) would be busting a lung shouting about how he's really just a "sincere" American who agrees with the "ultimate purpose of free speech" (or whatever).

I mean, that's exactly the sort of thing that "infiltrators" are, by definition, supposed to do, ain't it?

And if that's the case, then who's the "agent" here?

Hmmmmmmmm ...

Well, my custom title "Agent of Freedom" isn't showing in the new sidebar, so I guess I don't qualify...

LOL really though this gentleman doesn't really seem uhh...stable enough to qualify as an agent of anything.

If I'm honest, I like the level of his passion, but the focus of his obsession is too narrow, and he needs to learn to stop alienating the very people he's trying to reach.

In many ways, I see his campaign as being equivalent to the de jure and defacto shadow government UCC gold fringe sovereign citizen people, in that there seems to be this hocus pocus "If we can get so many people to agree with X, then America will just magically be fixed." The Sovereign Citizens believe that the current defacto government is illicit, they maintain a secret shadow government, and they seem to believe if they can just reach critical mass, the shadow (de jure) government will just magically replace the existing (de facto) government and America will be fixed.

So also it seems to me that Christopher appears to believe if he can just get enough people to recite his mantra, then *poof* America will be fixed.

There are no easy fixes. No mantra to recite, no critical mass of belief, no swapping the real government for the shadow government. It's just hard work over 20 years slogging through the muck is what's going to do it, just like the libdems corrupted the education system.

So I admit that I tend to get amused at these 'magical fixes' people. That amusement is likely what he reads that makes him think I am some kind of agent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

There he goes calling me an 'agent' again lmao :D

And you wonder why nobody wants to take your baited hook?

The bait on the hook is compelling a constitutional government, protecting rights and freedoms, defense of the constitution.

That bait does not interest you. That bait would not interest an agent. An agent would try to make people think the bait was something else.

Of course you are ambiguous, vague and unaccountable. So what you want people to think the bait is ain't clear.

Exactly what do you think the bait is?

[Christopher A. Brown]

How are you going to guarantee that only those who do like the Constitution attend this convention?

Now that concern from you is BS because I've shown that the Koch bros. are working to see that they control who shows up at a convention.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473357-Dynamic-Threats-To-Constitutional-Government-solution&p=5865531

That thread is all about stopping those who do not like the constitution serving the people show up. Agreeing with and accepting the ultimate purpose of free speech is all about assuring those people cannot destroy the constitution.

The 2nd amendment for example, but you will not agree with and accept the purpose of free speech to protect the right to bear arms. An agent would not either.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Seems to me like a "cog-infil agent of the NWO" (or whatever) would be busting a lung shouting about how he's really just a "sincere" American who agrees with the "ultimate purpose of free speech" (or whatever).

To make sense, you need to explain why the NWO would want people to unify around the purpose of free speech in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.



I mean, that's exactly the sort of thing that "infiltrators" are, by definition, supposed to do, ain't it?

And if that's the case, then who's the "agent" here?

Hmmmmmmmm ...

You are apparently confused because you do not realize the NWO does not support free speech or the people altering or abolishing government destructive to unalienable rights.

FYI, the NWO wants to destroy unalienable rights and freedoms.

[Anti Federalist]

There he goes calling me an 'agent' again lmao :D

And you wonder why nobody wants to take your baited hook?

I wield a pretty hefty neg rep hammer, and he just got a whack.

After being fairly warned.

[Anti Federalist]

And what if they lie and show up anyway?


Now that concern from you is BS because I've shown that the Koch bros. are working to see that they control who shows up at a convention.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473357-Dynamic-Threats-To-Constitutional-Government-solution&p=5865531

That thread is all about stopping those who do not like the constitution serving the people show up. Agreeing with and accepting the ultimate purpose of free speech is all about assuring those people cannot destroy the constitution.

The 2nd amendment for example, but you will not agree with and accept the purpose of free speech to protect the right to bear arms. An agent would not either.

[acptulsa]

Now that concern from you is BS because I've shown that the Koch bros. are working to see that they control who shows up at a convention.

1. What makes you think the Koch brothers know who does and know who doesn't like the U.S. Constitution?

2. Even assuming that they do, what makes you think those who do will be who the Kochs let in to the convention? After all, the Koch brothers don't have to be agents to work in favor of the oligarchy. They ARE the oligarchy.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I wield a pretty hefty neg rep hammer, and he just got a whack.

After being fairly warned.

People realize that the rep system is easily abused by a covert group, so you two are only exposing yourselves further after falling to be accountable.

Guns hasn't said what the bait is supposed to be you are still trying to sell the reason for free speech as it's purpose.

[GunnyFreedom]

LMAO AF -- now you are an agent too. :D :D :D I think I'll return the hammer favor.

[Christopher A. Brown]

1. What makes you think the Koch brothers know who does and know who doesn't like the U.S. Constitution?

How does that matter when they want to destroy its service to the people?
Why would billionaires not know who opposes their agenda of tyranny?Dumb Q.


Even assuming that they do, what makes you think those who do will be who the Kochs let in to the convention? After all, the Koch brothers don't have to be agents to work in favor of the oligarchy. They ARE the oligarchy.

The video at this thread tells us who they invited to the conference they sponsored with Levin speaking.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473357-Dynamic-Threats-To-Constitutional-Government-solution&p=5865531

At 10 minutes he speaks to state legislators about how easy, how few need to be involved, how quick it is to amend, using BO as a reason.

At 29 minutes he tries to tell those fearful of a runaway how hard it is to have unconstitutional amendments passed because there are do many involved.

Attorney doublespeak.

An actual Article V convention is constitutional. The people of the states decide who is a delegate. They are not planning that, it's a tyrannical manifesto scheme they are hoping to cook and you are helping them by not positioning the public to stop them

[Christopher A. Brown]

LMAO AF -- now you are an agent too. :D :D :D I think I'll return the hammer favor.

Oh, but don't be accountable by explaining what the "bait" is supposed to be.


There he goes calling me an 'agent' again lmao :D

And you wonder why nobody wants to take your baited hook?

Or what sacrifice you will see by accepting the purpose of free speech.

Or why you won't accept something as constitutional as the purpose of free speech to protect the .2nd amendment.

Your lack of consistency with your stated motives or reasons for being here exposes you.

[Anti Federalist]

Your lack of consistency with your stated motives or reasons for being here exposes you.

Do you know anything about Gunny or what he has done?

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh, but don't be accountable by explaining what the "bait" is supposed to be.

Or what sacrifice you will see by accepting the purpose of free speech.

Or why you won't accept something as constitutional as the purpose of free speech to protect the .2nd amendment.

Your lack of consistency with your stated motives or reasons for being here exposes you.
When are you going to comprehend that it's not free speech we're rejecting, it's YOU?

You are hostile, antagonistic, and anybody who doesn't worship you gets labeled an agent, or a traitor who hates America. No rational person interested in personal sovereignty is going to cooperate with that kind of extortion.

None of us have to be your enemy, you are plenty of your own enemy all by yourself.

[Anti Federalist]

LMAO AF -- now you are an agent too. :D :D :D I think I'll return the hammer favor.

Sheesh, never ending.

I gave him fair warning that if I caught him calling you an agent again, neg rep would be inbound.

[Anti Federalist]

When are you going to comprehend that it's not free speech we're rejecting, it's YOU?

You are hostile, antagonistic, and anybody who doesn't worship you gets labeled an agent, or a traitor who hates America. No rational person interested in personal sovereignty is going to cooperate with that kind of extortion.

None of us have to be your enemy, you are plenty of your own enemy all by yourself.

Honestly.

Chris, you need to read that, and take it to heart.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sheesh, never ending.

I gave him fair warning that if I caught him calling you an agent again, neg rep would be inbound.
I'm really not at all bothered by it. I have 7 solid years of hard-core activism right here on RPF's. Nobody is in danger of buying this guy's line of nonsense. More than anything I feel sorry for him. I think he's probably unbalanced, and off his meds. :( that's not meant as a joke either.

[Christopher A. Brown]

When are you going to comprehend that it's not free speech we're rejecting, it's YOU?

You are rejecting that free speech has a purpose by leaving the word purpose out in your selectivity. Agents do that all the time.

And good to see you identifying your group as doing it.


You are hostile, antagonistic, and anybody who doesn't worship you gets labeled an agent, or a traitor who hates America.

Hah! You WANT it to be ad hominium to avoid attacking the prime constitutional intent carried in the notion of free speech having a purpose.

Pitiful manipulator you are.


No rational person interested in personal sovereignty is going to cooperate with that kind of extortion.

None of us have to be your enemy, you are plenty of your own enemy all by yourself.

No rational person believes personal sovereignty will save them from the corporate oligarchy of tyranny that has infiltrated the federal government.

Most importantly, none of you support unity opposing tyranny under color of authority. You prefer to pretend that I seek recognition rather than seeking recognition for prime constitutional
Intent.

Pitiful loser agents.

[GunnyFreedom]

lmao :D

http://rs92.pbsrc.com/albums/l17/indigolden/smileys/4-1.gif~c200

[Christopher A. Brown]

I'm really not at all bothered by it. I have 7 solid years of hard-core activism right here on RPF's.

Hmmm, what a coincidence, that was when Cass Sunstein recommended to BO that he invest in cognitive infiltration with his administration.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites —

[Anti Federalist]

Hmmm, what a coincidence, that was when Cass Sunstein recommended to BO that he invest in cognitive infiltration with his administration.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites —

You don't read, you don't listen, you do not comprehend nor do you want to.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm really not at all bothered by it. I have 7 solid years of hard-core activism right here on RPF's. Nobody is in danger of buying this guy's line of nonsense. More than anything I feel sorry for him. I think he's probably unbalanced, and off his meds. :( that's not meant as a joke either.

Like others that have come before him, I can grok a message in there, once having waded through the ego, the mangled syntax and the jumps in time and place.

But I think you are right, that message is the same as the sovereign citizen, UCC, grand jury movement crowd, which is just a quick way to go to jail.

[GunnyFreedom]

You don't read, you don't listen, you do not comprehend nor do you want to.

I agree. He is just lashing out for the sake of lashing out. Were he interested in actual truth and integrity, it would have occurred to him that November of 2007 was a full 2 years and 2 months before his article, and a full year and 2 months before Obama was sworn in as President. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and assume errors or oversights, but this is clearly an unthinking and blind lashing out because I won't cow-tow to his 'leadership.'

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. He is just lashing out for the sake of lashing out. Were he interested in actual truth and integrity, it would have occurred to him that November of 2007 was a full 2 years and 2 months before his article, and a full year and 2 months before Obama was sworn in as President. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and assume errors or oversights, but this is clearly an unthinking and blind lashing out because I won't cow-tow to his 'leadership.'

No, nor will I, so, to him, that is de facto evidence of "coginfil".

[Christopher A. Brown]

You don't read, you don't listen, you do not comprehend nor do you want to.

Erroneous generalizations.

Get specific agent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

No, nor will I, so, to him, that is de facto evidence of "coginfil".

The term was invented by myself to describe your unaccountable, unreasoned act.

If that is not true you will get specific as my last post requests.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Like others that have come before him,

Get specific agent.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I agree. He is just lashing out for the sake of lashing out. Were he interested in actual truth and integrity, it would have occurred to him that November of 2007 was a full 2 years and 2 months before his article, and a full year and 2 months before Obama was sworn in as President. I try to give the benefit of the doubt to people and assume errors or oversights, but this is clearly an unthinking and blind lashing out because I won't cow-tow to his 'leadership.'

As if you are not all puppets acting at the behest of an overarching power that has taught you your dance.

Answer the question in the Princeton thread.

[GunnyFreedom]

As if you are not all puppets acting at the behest of an overarching power that has taught you your dance.

Answer the question in the Princeton thread.

Shit. If I had seen this before I posted over in that thread then I would have ignored your question. :mad:

[Christopher A. Brown]

Shit. If I had seen this before I posted over in that thread then I would have ignored your question. :mad:

Then answer the question.

[TheTexan]

Thank you for championing this cause Chris A Brown. So few people understand the importance and criticality of free speech and article v.

Keep up the good fight. Strength through unity.

[Anti Federalist]

Erroneous generalizations.

Get specific agent.

You attacked Gunny as an "agent" and accused him of being part of Cass Sunstein's/Obama's "coginfil" plot and attempted to prove it by posting an article that was released over two years after Gunny joined here.

Furthermore you refuse to read and understand Gunny's background before attacking him.

[Anti Federalist]

Thank you for championing this cause Chris A Brown. So few people understand the importance and criticality of free speech and article v.

Keep up the good fight. Strength through unity.

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs40/f/2009/022/6/5/Strength_Through_Unity_by_wilde1980.jpg

[Christopher A. Brown]

posted nothing

WTF, is that supposed to support communism? I know nothing about your favorite icons.

[wizardwatson]

WTF, is that supposed to support communism? I know nothing about your favorite icons.

It's from the movie Hellboy. He's saying you are a good father figure.

[Anti Federalist]

WTF, is that supposed to support communism? I know nothing about your favorite icons.

bxm posted:


Keep up the good fight. Strength through unity

That's a reference to the party motto of the Norsefire party, the tyrannical rulers of dystopian Britain in the movie and novel V for Vendetta.

I posted a picture of the motto and High Chancellor, from the movie.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You attacked Gunny as an "agent" and accused him of being part of Cass Sunstein's/Obama's "coginfil" plot and attempted to prove it by posting an article that was released over two years after Gunny joined here.

Furthermore you refuse to read and understand Gunny's background before attacking him.

I didn't refuse. I'm usually on an iPhone with only 2 bars of signal. That is because of nearly 20 years of deprivation of justice in order to prevent me from using free speech to defend the constitution with exposures of conspiracies etc. working against the constitution; impoverishes me.

I've read it now and I'm 20 years his senior and have always known that partisan politics is an engineered dead end. Not sure he's figured that out because he hasn't accepted the alternative and has so heavily invested in partisan politics.

As I said, most in the world of partisan politics are puppets, and that starts at childhood with hypnosis to the depth of somnambulism. You know nothing about that, but it is a fact anyway.

I assumed from his username that he was a redneck truck driver with more than one gun in his rack, or perhaps a veteran machine gunner.

You puppets are too afraid to use you own damm names because of a conspiracy to make you afraid, but don't recognize conspiracies well enough to even understand how they are conducted over time. And, I get the feeling you do not want to understand them. That is not reasonable. Such people make up the most effective conspiracies.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Thank you for championing this cause Chris A Brown. So few people understand the importance and criticality of free speech and article v.

Keep up the good fight. Strength through unity.

Thank you for that recognitition; but it is more than just free speech that is needed. Free speech has an actual tangible purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights, and that purpose needs to be written into our constitution.

Yes, strength through unity. Unity through understanding.

Understanding, or preventing it, is the main tool of tyrants to creating tyranny or perpetuating it.

[wizardwatson]

I didn't refuse. I'm usually on an iPhone with only 2 bars of signal. That is because of nearly 20 years of deprivation of justice in order to prevent me from using free speech to defend the constitution with exposures of conspiracies etc. working against the constitution impoverishes me.

I've read it now and I'm 20 years his senior and have always known that partisan politics is an engineered dead end. Not sure he's figured that out because he hasn't accepted the alternative and has so heavily invested in partisan politics.

As I said, most in the world of partisan politics are puppets, and that starts at childhood with hypnosis to the depth of somnambulism. You know nothing about that, but it is a fact anyway.

I assumed from his username that he was a redneck truck driver with more than one gun in his rack, or perhaps a veteran machine gunner.

You puppets are too afraid to use you own damm names because of a conspiracy to make you afraid, but don't recognize conspiracies well enough to even understand how they are conducted over time. And, I get the feeling you do not want to understand them. That is not reasonable. Such people make up the most effective conspiracies.

I think everyone here is grateful to you for using your real name.

[CCTelander]

Are you implying that they are "fighting for our freedoms"?

They are enforcing the dictates of the state, and would enforce against us, in a heartbeat.



Families? Possibly not. Friends and neighbors? By all means. "Support the Troops" means sending them off to get maimed and killed.



We're looking at a different set of people I guess.

Misread post.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I think everyone here is grateful to you for using your real name.

Glad you posted that because everyone here can search for it with the various subjects I focus on to find me consistently working to defend the 1787 constitution and rights conferred by it as well as those implied by the other framing documents.

What will I find if I search for wizard Watson?

[Ronin Truth]

Well that Article of the CONstitution finally seems to be starting to work out kinda well, just as designed and ratified. :rolleyes:

[Christopher A. Brown]

Well that Article of the CONstitution finally seems to be starting to work out kinda well, just as designed and ratified. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm is sooooo misplaced when it comes to errors.

It's not Article V that is the problem, it's that the purpose of free speech which is abridged so unity is not possible by the people.

If this is not true, show me where the people are unified outside of massive political or corporate power that is essentially using and misleading them.

[Ronin Truth]

Sarcasm is sooooo misplaced when it comes to errors.

It's not Article V that is the problem, it's that the purpose of free speech which is abridged so unity is not possible by the people.

If this is not true, show me where the people are unified outside of massive political or corporate power that is essentially using and misleading them.

Sarcasm is EXACTLY AND CORRECTLY PLACED when it comes to the bogus BS US CONstitution.

The cursed fruit of the illegal, unauthorized secretly produced Federalist coup on the A o C.

[Ronin Truth]

I think everyone here is grateful to you for using your real name.

You think incorrectly. I really don't give a crap, and/or couldn't care less.