Informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment

[Anti Federalist]

So says Loafers Lindsey




What a GOP Senator and Potential 2016 Contender Says Is a ‘Better Check’ Against ‘Governmental Tryanny’ Than the Second Amendment

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/17/what-a-gop-senator-and-potential-2016-contender-says-is-a-better-check-against-governmental-tryanny-than-the-second-amendment/

An informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment.

That was the message Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) sent Thursday while responding to comments by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham, who has been weighing a 2016 presidential bid, told Talking Points Memo. “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets.”

Graham later added that although he supports the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to protect themselves, their property and their families, he believes the First Amendment and voter participation is a better check on government.

The comment came on the heels of an email sent out from Cruz’s presidential campaign, in which the junior Texas senator told supporters that the Second Amendment isn’t there just to protect hunters.

“It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny – for the protection of liberty,” Cruz said in the email.

Graham, by contrast, said he’s not looking for an “insurrection.”

“I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her,” Graham said.

[Slave Mentality]

Yes, vote harder and smarter for your corporate sponsored cretin. That should do it.

[69360]

I'd feel safer with 2nd than 1st. I don't trust anyone enough to protect me.

[presence]

I'd be happy just to have the 3rd back.

Judge rules Third Amendment does not apply to cops. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473078-Judge-rules-Third-Amendment-does-not-apply-to-cops)

[CPUd]

I will wait until Chris Brown posts before I decide what to think on this issue...

[Christopher A. Brown]

Informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment
So says Loafers Lindsey


He's half right at best.

Information is only half of what is needed, unity upon corrective action is what works.

With partisan politics, which is about division, information helps, but not a lot because the people really cannot get much from media and their parties help little with unity, if at all.

What works is a lawful and peaceful revolution based in constitutional principle that uses preparatory amendment for Article V to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights. The people compell their states to act for very simple, constitutional preparation.

This draft revision of the first amendment has implications that empower not only information but also unity.

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.

Article V first revises the 1st amendment, then secures the vote and effects campaign finance reform by further amendment proposed by the states.

About the time the truth relating to some very controversial issues is presented to the public, motivation to unify and vote are going to escalate.

Article V will have delegates elected democratically and the infiltration of the federal government will be arrested by amendment that is crafted to get at key usurpations.
Slowly then, with great care and vetting of information by the public, allowing time for the new information to have its effect, other amendments will make the federal government constitutional.

That will deter tyranny and end it's threat until the people become ignorant, divided and lazy again, who knows, maybe on their own next time.

[pacodever]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C): “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than..."

You can stop right there, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You can stop right there, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

When were we fully informed on some very controversial issues that motivate electorates to unify and stop the ascent of tyranny?

When did our option to assure that information and opportunity for methods of unifying get exercised or disappear?

[Sola_Fide]

“I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her,” Graham said.



No you're not Lindsey. She makes you feel safe.

[mad cow]

An informed electorate is indeed a good check against government tyranny.

A well armed informed electorate is a much,much better check against government tyranny.

Hence,the Second Amendment.

[Christopher A. Brown]

An informed electorate is indeed a good check against government tyranny.

A well armed informed electorate is a much,much better check against government tyranny.

Hence,the Second Amendment.

Have you said a well armed disorganized group of citizens who are dependent on supermarkets and gasoline can keep check on tyranny?

I would submit that well armed is a good thing, but to make it work against the kind of tyranny threatening us, unity is ABSOLUTELY required, gun or no gun.

With unity we can kept the supply line open and flowing while working with law, until it's proven law won't work.

Currently, we are not functional to make the law work, inadequate unity upon the principles behind the law. Constitutional intent.

If we agree on that enmasse, the tyrants agreement upon the laws they selectively try to enforce upon us will soon be vanquished to be replaced by agreements we permit them to make.

[TheGrinch]

With a government that has a monopoly on violence, yes an informed passionate electorate is far more scary to them.

They know that our consent is what is keeping the gravy train running. Any question of that and they go scattering like the rats they are to convince us they're on our side.

[mad cow]

Have you said a well armed disorganized group of citizens who are dependent on supermarkets and gasoline can keep check on tyranny?

I would submit that well armed is a good thing, but to make it work against the kind of tyranny threatening us, unity is ABSOLUTELY required, gun or no gun.

With unity we can kept the supply line open and flowing while working with law, until it's proven law won't work.

Currently, we are not functional to make the law work, inadequate unity upon the principles behind the law. Constitutional intent.

If we agree on that enmasse, the tyrants agreement upon the laws they selectively try to enforce upon us will soon be vanquished to be replaced by agreements we permit them to make.

Well,all else being equal,a well armed disorganized group is a better check on government tyranny than an unarmed disorganized group.

[TheGrinch]

Well,all else being equal,a well armed disorganized group is a better check on government tyranny than an unarmed disorganized group.

Unorganized, armed doesn't mean shit. In fact, its just makes it easier for them to deal with the isolated "threats".

[mad cow]

Unorganized, armed doesn't mean shit. In fact, its just makes it easier for them to deal with the isolated "threats".

So you think that unorganized armed is no better than unorganized unarmed?

One man can make a difference,one man can light a spark,one man can change the world.

[TheGrinch]

So you think that unorganized armed is no better than unorganized unarmed?

One man can make a difference,one man can light a spark,one man can change the world.

You're missing the point. Yes, one man's efforts can help to organize a whole lot. But one armed man isn't going to do anything on his own (unless it happens to bring about an organized effort, which doesn't negate anything I said. The point is that together we have much more power than they want us to think, armed or unarmed).

[Christopher A. Brown]

With a government that has a monopoly on violence, yes an informed passionate electorate is far more scary to them.

They know that our consent is what is keeping the gravy train running. Any question of that and they go scattering like the rats they are to convince us they're on our side.

Thank you, you are right on with that!

When the publics ability to reason with law, vetting information accurately occurs, they get scared.

It is only our fear, ignorance, confusion, with its resulting failure to unify that emboldens them to do the things they recently do.

I have a feeling some of them are on our side, but our failure to unify, which defines our side better, becoming more desire able, more secure; has them turning their back on us and the constitution, the rule of law.

Accordingly, if we can fearlessly agree upon prime constitutional intent, and that works right here in this web forum, as well as in public, the true infiltrators will start packing.

I've chosen an expanded function for free speech from what we've known, because free speech is so widely and deeply appreciated; and I call it the "ultimate purpose of free speech"; to serve as the American publics first agreement upon prime constitutional intent.

Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity between people adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights

If that is not true, what else would the framers intend for us to use to serve the purpose of uniting us to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights?

After uniting around these prime principles, we can conduct our lawful and peaceful revolution. Then we will inherent their ill created and gotten networks, which are more extensive than we know, greatly strengthening the American future.

[Southron]

The last time South Carolina had an informed electorate it voted for secession, Lindsey.

[AuH20]

A tireless minority willing to lay down their lives will trump the electorate. The electorate has done nothing but grow the state to astonishing proportions.

[JK/SEA]

i think the Historical Ron Paul Revolution had a lot to do with the current paradigm shift we're experiencing, so i feel that with my participation in that crazy time, has been my 'electorate' contribution to trying to wake this country up....how we doin' so far?

[Christopher A. Brown]

A tireless minority willing to lay down their lives will trump the electorate. The electorate has done nothing but grow the state to astonishing proportions.

Only because they are not informed. Definition of the problem says that it is first a lack of factual information to the electorate, then an inability to use the information politically.

There is a lack of a method serving the purpose of creating unity adequate to do anything except go along with the infiltrated governments agenda. Party politics pit Americans against Americans within mediocre, non functional political decisions instead of maintaining a constitutional government.

Your focus on the problem instead of the solution is myopia.

Americans need to unify around prime constitutional intent because that is something was can all agree upon. I assert such agreement can be found based in the ultimate purpose of free speech, or that such purpose is abridged. Agreeing upon that, because such intent is so prime, is also an agreement that there is a vital demand for the action of "alter or abolish" and such abridgment is the only barrier to being able to "alter or abolish" with Article V and assure that all amendments have constitutional intent.

To assure that, America obviously needs to prepare. Hence, there is a vital need for preparatory amendment making the nation constitutional enough to define constitutional intent.

Simple really. Its a matter of investing in a plan that is out of the controlled box of partisan politics and just doing it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Lindsey, when the first fails to protect the 3rd through, and including, the tenth, the second is the only option left.

And you, sir, are an enemy to all ten.

The first is plan 'A', the second is plan 'B'.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Lindsey, when the first fails to protect the 3rd through, and including, the tenth, the second is the only option left.

And you, sir, are an enemy to all ten.

The first is plan 'A', the second is plan 'B'.

How could the first fail if we do not know its purpose?

[GunnyFreedom]

I like it when lindsey and cruz are fighting. it divides the warhawks.

[ClydeCoulter]

How could the first fail if we do not know its purpose?

How could I starve to death, if I don't know what to eat?

[fisharmor]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

[Christopher A. Brown]

How could I starve to death, if I don't know what to eat?

Correct, the food you do not know does not fail, you fail.

The tool we do not know for its capacity to create unity within us, does not fail, we fail for not knowing how to use it.

Accordingly, I ask all Americans who claim to be sincere; "Do you agree and accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter and abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?"

Agreement and acceptance creates among us the; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, and trust needed to unify then use that unity to preserve the republic by acting together, with its principles retaining our unalienable rights.

Do you agree and accept that definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

Yes, an electorate informed of the natural law elements which enable its unity can use them to create then exercise the tyranny of the masses, for the true benefit of the masses. And they must do it preserving freedom, because freedom enables adaptation the masses MUST achieve.

[jmdrake]

Could Lindsey Lohan Graham be so damaged by the stupidity that will ineveitably come from his presidetial run that he lose his senate seat? One can only hope.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

This is a very reasonable question. A functional question.

Here is the only real answer that defeats tyranny.

In the wake of massive failure of the electorate to know and support the ultimate purpose of free speech, the electorate will have to inform itself of the constitutional intent which enables unity adequate to alter or abolish, defeating tyrannical ambitions of elite infiltrations into government and the electorate.

My last post is designed to expose an infiltration into the electorate. Are you educatable? Will you do critical thinking?

Doing so will educate the electorate into the tactics and methods of those who work to DISINFORM the electorate.

[fisharmor]

This is a very reasonable question. A functional question.

Here is the only real answer that defeats tyranny.

In the wake of massive failure of the electorate to know and support the ultimate purpose of free speech, the electorate will have to inform itself of the constitutional intent which enables unity adequate to alter or abolish, defeating tyrannical ambitions of elite infiltrations into government and the electorate.

My last post is designed to expose an infiltration into the electorate. Are you educatable? Will you do critical thinking?

Doing so will educate the electorate into the tactics and methods of those who work to DISINFORM the electorate.

First of all, this movement knowingly and intentionally abandoned the effort to educate the electorate in June 2012. So this entire thread is a moot point. Everyone has agreed that the way forward is to grab power under false pretenses, and then be the one instance in all of human history where that power is used to eliminate power. And everyone also agreed that the people who don't agree with that don't count.

Second of all, your posts all assume that it's even possible for people to relinquish power once it's attained. This is less possible for the electorate than it is with individual politicians.
Politicians are individuals, and as individuals, to a man they have decided to use their power to benefit some, to the detriment of others.

If you can't even find one in 535 who is willing to put the good of the entirety of society above the good of his special interest, what chance do you have of finding millions more? Particularly when each of those millions perceives the benefit not as going to his special interest, but to himself, directly?

[Christopher A. Brown]

First of all, this movement

What movement?

[paleocon1]

Hmmmmmm, a truly Informed Electorate would march on DC with their 2nd Amendment authorised devices looking to institute summary regime change.

[Pericles]

I have to vote against the same tyrants every day. Shot tyrants tend to stay dead, and the other tyrants might learn from the example.

[Christopher A. Brown]

My last post is designed to expose an infiltration into the electorate. Are you educatable? Will you do critical thinking?



My last post before this one is now missing.

Censorship serving covert cognitive infiltration is what that is. The agent has friends in high places here.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well,all else being equal,a well armed disorganized group is a better check on government tyranny than an unarmed disorganized group.

Yup. A relatively unorganized bunch of Evil Brown People are pwning the occupying forces of 2 of history's most powerful empires for the second time in less than a century ATM.

[GunnyFreedom]

These neocons have had it their way since 1988, and it's been a massive failboat all along. They offered us neocons in 2008, and 2012, lost miserably, and they want to do it to us again in 2016. This faction is out of control and it's time we did something about it. No more neocons. No more perpetual war. Go back to Reagan and Goldwater, a rational foreign policy, and see that the neocons hate Rand Paul like the same hated Goldwater and Reagan. They sound all patriotic and pro-military but they are wrong. They are wolves in sheep's clothing who want to see the whole world on fire, and to get rich off of it.It's time for a change. No more unconstitutional perpetual war. No more neocons. No more gift-wrapping the oval office for the next worst Democrat. It's time for President Paul.

[Ronin Truth]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- TJ

[Christopher A. Brown]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- TJ

Events tell me we are not at the point of "last resort" yet.

Therefore other, logically, less violent methods are to resorted to.

Article V, with preparatory amendment is the lawful and peaceful revolution of our right to "alter or abolish".

To use it effectively, we need to be unified. To use arms effectively we need to be unified.

To unify we need commonality as a point of unity. Commonality implies sharing to determine what is common. Therein is the ultimate purpose of free speech defined as a need for unity from independence to occur.

Simply by agreeing that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to create unity, we become unified. There is an implied co agreement. That purpose is abridged. There is only one logical option when such a fundamental right is abridged, Article V, the right to alter or abolish must be used.

The logical use is to first prepare to assure all amendments are constitutional by making Americans more aware of constitutional intent by enabling mass communications, dynamically, to enable Americans to develop their understanding and appreciation of what constitutional intent is. Democracy needs security of the vote. Campaign finance needs to be reformed assuring all candidates are heard.

Then, Americans need to use fee speech enabled to unify further in either legal or democratic action to restore constitutional government.

If that fails, the unity remaining and the arms in possession, can be very effective as the last resort.

[Weston White]

Oh the irony of that statement: Battle of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29), St. Bartholomew Day Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre), Night of the Long Knives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives).

List of incidents of civil unrest in Colonial North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_Nort h_America)
List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_St ates)

[Pericles]

Events tell me we are not at the point if "last resort" yet.

Therefore other, logically, less violent methods are to resorted to.

Article V, with preparatory amendment is the lawful and peaceful revolution of our right to "alter it abolish".

To use it effectively, we need to be unified. To use arms effectively we need to be unified.

To unify we need commonality as a point of unity. Commonality implies sharing to determine what is common. Therein is the ultimate purpose of free speech defined as a need for unity from independence to occur.

Simply by agreeing that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to create unity, we become unified. There is an implied co agreement. That purpose is abridged. There is only one logical option when such a fundamental right is abridged, Article V, the right to alter or abolish must be used.

The logical use is to first prepare to assure all amendments are constitutional by making Americans more aware of constitutional intent by enabling mass communications, dynamically, to enable Americans to develop their understanding and appreciation of what constitutional intent is. Democracy needs security of the vote. Campaign finance needs to be reformed assuring all candidates are heard.

Then, Americans need to use fee speech enabled to unify further in either legal or democratic action to restore constitutional government.

If that fails, the unity remaining and the arms in possession, can be very effective as the last resort.
No one is at the point or last resort, until they come for you. And then you are alone, because no on else is at the point of last resort.

[Christopher A. Brown]

No one is at the point or last resort, until they come for you. And then you are alone, because no on else is at the point of last resort.

That is but one scenario describing an individual. That is the scenario the infiltrated government wants for each un united rebel.

The scenario they don't' want and we need is our united mass using its natural law tyranny of majority to compel compliance to our law.

As a last resort they pretend to be law abiding officials, government employees etc. but they actually follow our law in order to have a job. Then there are the sincere Americans who are officials or employees that are able to do their job better and supervise the pretenders better.

[TheTexan]

The problem is an uninformed electorate.

Yes, if only we could mail everybody a shitload of super brochures to tell everybody that war is bad, taxes hurt the economy, the state is too big, they'd all realize their errors and join our cause!!

[Pericles]

That is but one scenario describing an individual. That is the scenario the infiltrated government wants for each un united rebel.

The scenario they don't' want and we need is our united mass using its natural law tyranny of majority to compel compliance to our law.

As a last resort they pretend to be law abiding officials, government employees etc. but they actually follow our law in order to have a job. Then there are the sincere Americans who are officials or employees that are able to do their job better and supervise the pretenders better.

I thought that was where you were going, nut id your point is that it is difficult to arrest an infantry battalion, I would tend to agree.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I thought that was where you were going, nut id your point is that it is difficult to arrest an infantry battalion, I would tend to agree.

That is exactly the idea behind this.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

All they really need is a bunch of intelligent, informed, dedicated Americans explaining that it is constitutional and the right time to do the right thing.

When is the infantry going to get sick of being mislead, used and abused?

I kinda think that if a hundred or so soldiers filed with the base commander while citizens protested against media concealing the fact; that a few sincere, constitutional Americans in command, would start talking together about the citizens agreements upon constitutional intent, THEN they start filing upgraded versions with JAGS behind them.

At that point, resignations of command and civil officials start pouring in including hasty vacations by the joint chiefs of staff.

[Ronin Truth]

Just don't ask them what century the Civil War was fought. :(

[TheTexan]

Just don't ask them what century the Civil War was fought. :(

The decade is the hard part

[Christopher A. Brown]

The problem is an uninformed electorate.

Yes, if only we could mail everybody a shitload of super brochures to tell everybody that war is bad, taxes hurt the economy, the state is too big, they'd all realize their errors and join our cause!!

What you've described is a strategy that tries to defeat the catch 22 resulting from a serious deficiency In the framing documents.

You describe a method of creating unity around some common sense principles. I would present that enough Americans have already realized their errors related to those principles and are looking for a way to unite to correct the problems that have arisen with those errors.

This is where our awareness of the PURPOSE of free speech integrates with unity. We might not find unity across all of those errors, but the fact that a mailing of super brochures is impractical and lacks a mailing list of Americans that are likely open to observing those errors, is something all will recognize.

Without knowing it they have a collective awareness of the deep problem of the purpose of free speech abridged. All that needs articulating is that the framers intended for us to be in agreement around information which defines aspects leading to governmental destruction of unalienable rights. That is the basic notion of free speech, but that it actually has the purpose of enabling the unity needed to abolish that government destructive to vital rights is a notion not yet a part of the American dialogue about free speech.

The beauty of an agreement about the purpose of free speech is that it implies such purpose is abridged, which effectively removes the right to alter or abolish. Educating our friends and family on this is an excellent grassroots beginning of a movement. Mostly because the information is prime constitutional intent very powerful for an Article V convention.

Luckily people are fairly well aware that free speech has little meaning or impact unless a person has massive money to get the attention of TV or radio audiences directing them to web sites, videos or publications. Such awareness is a motivator to extend oneself and reach out to share facts that could significantly protect our futures and improve our lives if adequately known and acted upon.

After a period of time, saturation of overlapping circles of acquaintances will cause alliances whereupon political escalations will occur in small social groups. Basically at some point people are going to realize that partisan politics as usual, are going no where faster and a
faster. That is a threshold where more radical activists are going to start dividing their time up to include working upon our lawful and peaceful revolution.

Those activists are going to know there is a substantial base of ordinary Americans that know and understand this prime principle and will unconditionally support enabling functional unity because it makes sense to engage another approach completely free of political dogma.

Many people have become apolitical and apathetic because of the dysfunction that dogma has created. I expect a fair amount of them to awaken and become passionate supporters once they understand what is happening.

[TheTexan]

Basically at some point people are going to realize that partisan politics as usual, are going no where faster and a
faster.

I agree, but it should get a lot better when Hillary Clinton wins. She has pledged to end the politics as usual, on a 'relationship-building' campaign, that should really help the two parties work together to get a lot more done and a lot more laws passed. It should be a great next 8 years with a lot of good progress, if Clinton can keep that promise.

[Danke]

I agree, but it should get a lot better when Hillary Clinton wins. She has pledged to end the politics as usual, on a 'relationship-building' campaign, that should really help the two parties work together to get a lot more done and a lot more laws passed. It should be a great next 8 years with a lot of good progress, if Clinton can keep that promise.

It is so refreshing to have a glass half full guy on this forum.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I agree, but it should get a lot better when Hillary Clinton wins. She has pledged to end the politics as usual, on a 'relationship-building' campaign, that should really help the two parties work together to get a lot more done and a lot more laws passed. It should be a great next 8 years with a lot of good progress, if Clinton can keep that promise.

Yes, that would be nice, but campaign promises are rarely kept. And while they are broken, the nation is pushed closer and closer to an economic cliff with NO accountability ever being found for the manipulations that have damaged us so badly.

With that in mind, and the great need to see the constitution finally enforced, I advocate that Americans awaken a second line of defense and enforcement of the constitution that is uncompromising.

That is done by Americans grasping prime constitutional intent and demanding that ALL OFFICIALS accept it, as is implied in their oaths and the basic public trust they agree to when taking office. WTF wouldn't Americans want to be aware of and use that prime intent of the constitution for control over government and enforcement of the constitution?

There is no reason. What there is are legions of covert infiltrators that have confused and distracted as many Americans from knowing and wanting to unify around that intent so it can be properly used.

There are two prime intentions of the constitution that are more easily seen in the Declaration of Independence than they are in the constitution. This is why real constitutional scholars state that all three framing documents must be used to define the intent of the constitution. They understood, and we should, that the environment was highly competitive with many loyalists secretly working for the interests of the elite English power in retaining control over their colonies. What happened was they were partly succesfull in sabotaging the explicit language of the documents.

Such sucess does not mean we aquiese to forgetting or setting aside the actual intent of the framers. It means we must be vigilant to our right to understand those intents and amend the documents to reflect that actual original intent. Or, if it was deficient, to refind and articulate a more robust statement of the same, extended and articulated intent.

The two intentions of the Declaration of Independence are the unalienable rights and the right to alter or abolish government destructive to the rights. All Americans need to do is focus on that and assure that all officials understand, agree with, and support those rights as those of the federal constitution and the republic under it.

This really is not asking a lot of Americans and officials. But covert infiltrations constantly try to detract from the simple elements of it and complicate the perceptions of the needed political actions with much BS.



This is why the people need

[Christopher A. Brown]

It is so refreshing to have a glass half full guy on this forum.

Hey, what about me? I'm about a 3/4 full guy but will not endorse any more party politics whatsoever. Individual politicians seeking election to official offices that can address prime constitutional intent properly have my support. To hell with parties. They are a tool for the elite to effect division and obstruction.

The problem is that the people have no way to unify around prime constitutional intent in order to
make candidates and officials accountable to the intents they are supposed to operate under. The purpose of free speech is to create and maintain that unity.

Accordingly Americans that support the constitutions intent, must apply extra effort to overcome the abridging of the purpose of free speech. This means each day, every day, patriots that stand for the intents of the 1787 compact must look for opportunity and people to inform of those prime intents and the strategy to use them to assure all state legislators support them by demanding Article V WITH preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional BEFORE the process of further amendment is undertaken.

[Ender]

The problem is an uninformed electorate.

Yes, if only we could mail everybody a shitload of super brochures to tell everybody that war is bad, taxes hurt the economy, the state is too big, they'd all realize their errors and join our cause!!

I think some members are not getting your dry humor yet. ;)

[Christopher A. Brown]

I agree, but it should get a lot better when Hillary Clinton wins. She has pledged to end the politics as usual, on a 'relationship-building' campaign, that should really help the two parties work together to get a lot more done and a lot more laws passed. It should be a great next 8 years with a lot of good progress, if Clinton can keep that promise.

I have a hard time imagining partisan cooperation as you describe. Parties have agendas and that's what rules them at elections.

There are cooperations occasionally but it's most often not during elections and usually between incumbents that are forced by public pressure to make compromises in party agendas in order to get something done.

This is why I conceptualize Americans converting their political focus to idealistic constitutional principals and challenging all politicians to meet a standard the public has defined. Prime constitutional intent.

No harm whatsoever can come from it and it will provide a great litmus test for all incumbents who are challenged by candidates. Suddenly the bar will be raised and they cannot totally talk in the obscurities of party agenda. Evasion of the constitutional principle will expose them as incompetent or too committed to party agendas to actually work for the people from office.

And the people will have given themselves a valuable lesson in the constitution and how to use it to test politicians.

[nobody's_hero]

Hmmmmmm, a truly Informed Electorate would march on DC with their 2nd Amendment authorised devices looking to institute summary regime change.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean if you're truly informed you have to admit to yourself that we're kind of beyond the whole 'just vote against the bad apples' stage.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean if you're truly informed you have to admit to yourself that we're kind of beyond the whole 'just vote against the bad apples' stage.

If you are truly informed you know that the purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to have 20 million other informed Americans show up with their authorized devices. Meaning no devices are used making the event more constitutional.

This is a more constitutional way for a soldier to defend the constitution.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

If we were 1/4 that informed upon prime constitutional intent then we could simply unify around it to lawfully control our states then amend the infiltration right out if the government business. That would be directly defending the constitution because we know exactly how it defends itself through us and our unity.

The voting against bad apples strategy spends too much time evaluating rotten apples, there are many.

We need a front that the good apples can easily see. And because they are good they become visible supporting the front of positive action for restoration of constitutional government. Then we vote for them.