Dynamic Threats To Constitutional Government-solution

[Christopher A. Brown]

What is shared in this thread could easily surround all American politics, because those politics are not functional and the powers that be know it. That dysfunction has been cultivated for a reason. Perhaps to cultivate a false need or vacuum for control, that ultimately destroys the principals of the 1787 constitution beyond any hope of recovery.

The first threat has a face that is above board, with a hidden body of corporations controlling it, and it will very likely try to hijack an Article V convention. Here's what it looks like.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/mark-levin-urges-states-to-take-back-your-power-from-runaway-obama/article/2556952

By Paul Bedard Via the Washington Examiner-

The building national movement for a constitutional convention to block President Obama's executive orders got a huge boost Thursday when leading advocate Mark Levin urged state lawmakers to throttle all of Washington, including Republicans.

"Take your power back," he demanded of the hundreds of lawmakers attending the American Legislative Exchange Council convention on Capitol Hill. "You are the last line of defense of liberty."

Levin got star billing because a focus of the winter meeting of the limited government group is pushing for a convention of states, a project of the Citizens for Self-Governance, who sponsored the top talk show host who recently wrote a book laying out constitutional amendments the nation should consider.

He described a nation that is morphing into a "post-constitutional" crisis where state legislatures are "irrelevant," and the president and Congress do whatever they want, and nobody in Washington provides checks and balances.

"We have a president of the United States who says, 'Hey, Congress won't act. I will.' Excuse me? Well what's that? Sounds like a runaway convention to me," he said.

Ditto for Republicans. "Throw out the establishment Republicans and others who are stopping you from doing what you need to do," Levin urged.

To applause, he pushed legislators to consider a convention of 2,000-3,000 delegates to review procedures for hosting a constitutional convention as a warning shot to Congress and the White House. "That alone would shake up this city," he said.

While Levin and convention proponents have support, some at the ALEC event said it was too radical a move, and a few cited criticisms that a conservative-led convention would go too far.

Levin rejected the concerns about a "runaway convention," noting that the Constitution requires many states to approve any action, making it unlikely that a radical idea would get through.

He dismissed critics, and added that proponents are simply trying to save the Constitution.

"Ignore these idiots," he said of critics, adding about his backers, "we're not some cult over here. We're the majority."

-----------------

Now I’m worried. I’ve been trying to find out for about a year if “Convention of States” (COS) is associated with ALEC in any way. Could not find a connection. Word was a home school guy is behind the Citizens for Self-Governance group that started it. We know the Koch brothers are behind ALEC. Big time exploitation of GATT, petroleum and gas. Perhaps okay if benefitting the US, but it’s sold offshore, Asia and Africa. GATT and NAFTA are treason removing US law from control over US territory.

You will be surprised to know that the cognitive infiltration at Occupy Wall Street forum opposed making ALEC accountable to constitutional intent in 2011. Soros through asbusters created OWS.

“Convention of States” seemed more grass roots, but refused to dialogue about the notion that “the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts” (Lincoln 1859) and that for them to be the masters they need to be prepared to run a check on CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT. When COS failed to discuss constitutional intent and "Preparatory Amendment", I became suspicious.

What I think I’m seeing is two heads of the same monster getting ready to hijack a convention and leave the determination of constitutional intent up to corporations and incumbent politicians USING Obama as an excuse and reason.

With Levin as a ringmaster making comforting noises of saving the constitution for the people to sleep on.

WTF didn't they work to get him out before he made such a mess? The BC issue, the universities that will not release records, the court decisions violating due process, law and constitutional rights of people trying to get the truth.

What if the infiltrated federal government finally controls enough states to pass amendments that are unconstitutional? If that is 3/4 of the states, the remaining states cannot stop it. And, we already know congress is not constitutional.

Now we find out COS is sponsoring Levin at an ALEC event on Article V.

Let me spell this out for you.

If the people do not know what constitutional intent is, AND the state legislators of 3/4 of the states are in the pocket of the infiltrated federal government, THEN they can amend violating constitutional intent and no one will even know until it is too late.


This reeks of a potential set up folks.


IF Obama was put in position to drive the nation to accept Article V, and ALEC with COS are going to run it through the states, THEN it could be very bad because all of the corporations of ALEC are doing WTO business.


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

Levin is a fast talker, this is as close to a transcript as I can get.

"He's saying less than 70 of you .... 2 from less than 2/3 of the State legislatures serving as delegates so 2/3 x 50 x2 equals 66." He does later refer to 3/4 of the States.

Later in the video, after about 29 minutes, the gist of what he says is almost opposite. He mocks people worried about a runaway because there are hundreds involved in each state.

Now, the other threat to the constitution is more covert. Basically multinational corporations nullifying laws by the agreement of government.

There's a thread about it here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473334-Newly-Leaked-TTIP-Draft-Reveals-Far-Reaching-Assault-on-US-EU-Democracy

From that thread there is a summary of what is happening.

"Regulatory cooperation refers to the "harmonization of regulatory frameworks between the E.U. and the U.S. once the TTIP negotiations are done," ostensibly to ensure such regulations do not pose barriers to trade, the Corporate Europe Observatory explained earlier this month.

However, analysts have repeatedly warned that, euphemisms aside, "cooperation," in fact, allows corporate power to trample democratic protections, from labor to public health to climate regulations, while encouraging a race to the lowest possible standards.

What we have is congress and the president blatently conducting secret negotiations with groups of corporations that give those corporations, involved with foreign trade, power over laws.

Another level of treason is the reality of that. A level over GATT and NAFTA, which badly damaged the American economy also with massive environmental destruction here and abroad.

Both GATT and NAFTA usurp U.S. Law in U.S. Territory. That is a definition of treason.

There is only one way out of this situation, and America is, by its size and influence in a position to make or break this global corporate effort to basically run the world by the interests of business.

The way out is for Americans to use their option to "alter or abolish".

America has the governmental structure of Article V from which 3/4 of the states can amend the constitution. ALEC wants to empower corporations, but that is not constitutional because life is eventually compromised by environmental issues. Whereas the principles if the constitution, by default protect all things vital to life. Air and water are protected an these threats see to remove that lawful and rightful protection.

So, there are two threats, one potentially internally asserting corporate control, the other externally doing it. All based on short term profits being the most important thing. Both threats aim to get rid of government environmental controls.

Our educational system was hijacked long ago and the knowledge people needed to become truly independent has been slowly sequestered into "on the job training" and schools only teach the background sciences. So there is more to do than just ousting corporations from global leadership.

We must recover and consolidate the knowledge needed to teach successive generations true independence which is quite a bit more sustainable than anything centralized corporate activities can accomplish.

To "alter or abolish" Americans must be able to define constitutional intent. That definition can be asserted legally to take control of states then through the power of states, control the federal government by amendment of the constitution.

Here is strategy to do that, a lawful and peaceful revolution.

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

[Ronin Truth]

Lysander Spooner fans.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Lysander Spooner fans.

Yes, a Spooner had a lot of perspective that was applicable.

I however never was able to read much of his work. I found it too spread out to be useful generally. I did however benefit from a number of profound quotes that others found.

[Ronin Truth]

Yes, a Spooner had a lot of perspective that was applicable.

I however never was able to read much of his work. I found it too spread out to be useful generally. I did however benefit from a number of profound quotes that others found.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

[Christopher A. Brown]

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

I followed up on that link with search terms of specific interest. "Constitutional intent". Unfortunately I was disappointed. No results, but this is what came up.

... in the rate of interest; thus denying the natural and constitutional right of the people to make two classes of contracts, which will ... a class of contracts, that are immoral and fraudulent, in intent, if not in law, on the part of the creditors, and which ought never to ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/03/2009 - 21:41 - 0 attachments
No Treason, No. 2
... maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For ... conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by ...
Book page - rbarnett - 08/12/2009 - 02:27 - 0 attachments
An Essay on the Trial by Jury
... 97 CHAPTER IX. 101 THE CRIMINAL INTENT. 101 CHAPTER X. 107 MORAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ... there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/04/2009 - 11:28 - 0 attachments
Credit, Currency and Banking
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, RELATIVE TO CREDIT, ... are Unconstitutional. CRAP. 3. What Bank Charters are Constitutional. CHAP. 4. The Power of Congress over the Currency. CHAP. ... the States to pass any law impairing the meaning and intent of wills. Such a [*4] provision would have manifestly implied, and ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/11/2009 - 23:15 - 0 attachments
A Defence for Fugitive Slaves
... 2. The Commissioners appointed by the Act of 1850, are not constitutional tribunals for the adjudication of such cases. 3. The State ... can convict a man, must find that he acted with a criminal intent ‑‑ for it is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/11/2009 - 23:16 - 0 attachments
Considerations for Bankers
... here taken, then, is, that a State government has no more constitutional power to prohibit the practical use of any knowledge conveyed by ... printing, published, or exposed to sale, contrary to the intent of this act, the one moiety thereof to such legal owner of the copyright ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/11/2009 - 23:13 - 0 attachments
Who Caused the Reduction of Postage?
... by Lysander Spooner STATEMENT. Including - 1. - The Constitutional Question - the opinions of the press, the certificates of Hon. ... the Department. It was not the evasions, either of the intent or the letter, of the existing laws, that alarmed Congress for the ...
Page - rbarnett - 08/04/2009 - 11:29 - 0 attachments
Address of the Free Constitutionalists
... to have an effect upon it, it nevertheless contains constitutional opinions, which are deemed of permanent importance, and worthy ... In the mouths of honest men, it would imply that they were intent upon giving freedom to labor and men, that now are not free. But in the ...

It seems I may be one of the few that dares to suppose I can define constitutional intent in a way that fellow Americans can logically and justifiably agree with.

So far, the fact that no reasonable and comprehensive argument opposing the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech has manifested, and currently no one will discuss it, indicates that I've hit the nail on the head, but folks are not willing to admit it, at least not overtly.

Sadly, that is what is needed to create the snowballing agreement and acceptance I know is possible. Once that happens there is a implied agreement that such purpose is abridged which by default effectively nullifies the most important point of the Declaration of Independence, the right to alter or abolish.

It does so because we will not have the power to effectively alter or abolish if we are not unified. Unity upon the fact that the federal government is not a constitutional civil government does not constitutive an awareness of constitutional intent.

Article V, the codification of alter or abolish, requires that all amendments have constitutional intent.

[Ronin Truth]

The CONstitution was never bottom up. It was always just an unauthorized, illegal, immoral top down secret Federalist coup on the Articles of Confederation and a betrayal of the American Revolution.

The Anti-federalists were both prescient and correct.

(Good luck on attempting to convince this American otherwise.)

[HVACTech]

The CONstitution was never bottom up. It was always just an unauthorized, illegal, immoral top down secret Federalist coup on the Articles of Confederation and a betrayal of the American Revolution.

The Anti-federalists were both prescient and correct.

(Good luck on attempting to convince this American otherwise.)

Chris is making an attempt to discuss "Constitutional intent". he has shown that he is willing to look into things of which you speak.
you on the other hand, are making no attempt to discuss things with Chris.

that you HATE the Constitution and hold it in utter contempt is both obvious and well known.
the founders discussed in GREAT detail, the need for a Constitution.
do your own research please.

[Ronin Truth]

Chris is making an attempt to discuss "Constitutional intent". he has shown that he is willing to look into things of which you speak.
you on the other hand, are making no attempt to discuss things with Chris.

that you HATE the Constitution and hold it in utter contempt is both obvious and well known.
the founders discussed in GREAT detail, the need for a Constitution.
do your own research please.

Research done quite a while ago. Yeah, discussed a GREAT deal in secret. :p

Where was TJ? How about the Anti-federalist FOUNDERS?




"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

[HVACTech]

Research done quite a while ago. Yeah, discussed a GREAT deal in secret. :p

Where was TJ? How about the Anti-federalist FOUNDERS?

Chris was trying to talk about constitutional intent.

why are you derailing his thread?


that you HATE the Constitution and hold it in utter contempt is both obvious and well known.

did you have another point to make?
or are you inviting me to rehash a 250 year old argument?
and if so, why? :confused:

[Christopher A. Brown]

The CONstitution was never bottom up. It was always just an unauthorized, illegal, immoral top down secret Federalist coup on the Articles of Confederation and a betrayal of the American Revolution.

The Anti-federalists were both prescient and correct.

(Good luck on attempting to convince this American otherwise.)

Let us simply work with the language and dispense with preconceptions in order to get a handle on intent. The beginning of the statements of intent are from 1776.

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

That general statement of the Declaration of Independence was codified as,

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,

With the preceding I've established the origin of intent, before the Articles of Confederation which was 1777. Let us look closely at that intent in the beginning.

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?
2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?
3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Accountability is vital to establish sincerity in a discussion of constitutional intent.
I do understand you point about the states wariness regarding the consolidation of power in one federal government despite the proposal that it be the mechanism of a republic defined by the principles of the constitution.
I would submit that the wariness was based in something else altogether. A fear not recorded in history. It was a valid fear, but, not a part of this discussion.

So please answer the questions.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Chris was trying to talk about constitutional intent.

why are you derailing his thread?

did you have another point to make?
or are you inviting me to rehash a 250 year old argument?
and if so, why? :confused:

I think I remember Ronin from October2011 forum. There was the same insistence there that the constitution was by the elite for the elite and not for the people. We shall see if there is reasonable accountability now.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Research done quite a while ago. Yeah, discussed a GREAT deal in secret. :p

Where was TJ? How about the Anti-federalist FOUNDERS?

Many people in 1787 were discussing the constitution. The framers were very possibly occasionally were responding in their public comments to sentiment about the proposal of a constitution from random members of the public.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/essays/antifederalists-other-founders-american-constitutional

The Great Debate
The publication of the Constitution in September 1787 inaugurated one of the most vigorous political campaigns in American history. In the process of arguing over the merits of the new plan of government, Americans not only engaged in a lively inquiry into the meaning of constitutional government, they also helped make constitutionalism a central defining characteristic of American political culture. Although the Constitution had been drafted in private by a small select group of statesmen, its meaning was inescapably public. As soon as the results of the Philadelphia Convention became known, Americans began discussing the new frame of government. A week after the convention adjourned, one Philadelphian reported that “the new plan of government proposed by the Convention has made a bustle in the city and its vicinity.” Less than a month later, farther west in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, another observer noted that “the new Constitution for the United States seems now to engross the attention of all ranks.” In other parts of America similar observations were made. One Virginia commentator remarked that “the plan of a Government proposed to us by the Convention—affords matter for conversation to every rank of beings from the Governor to the door keeper.”[1]


Some accountability will give your position credibility.

[acesfull]

Simply read the first sentence of the constitution and ye shall understand that it was bogus from the start. " We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners... I rest my case...

Acesfull

[Christopher A. Brown]

Simply read the first sentence of the constitution and ye shall understand that it was bogus from the start. " We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners... I rest my case...

Acesfull

Can you point out the "We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners" part?

Do you accept that?

Or will you oppose that?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Simply read the first sentence of the constitution and ye shall understand that it was bogus from the start. " We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners... I rest my case...

Acesfull

Can you point out the "We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners" part?

Do you accept that, assuming you can find where is says that?

Or will you oppose that because its wrong and does not say it anywhere?

[acesfull]

Can you point out the "We the people, meaning only wealthy white property owners" part?

Do you accept that, assuming you can find where is says that?

Or will you oppose that because its wrong and does not say it anywhere?

Were poor white folks allow to vote? Were black folks allow to vote? Were woman allow to vote?

[Ronin Truth]

Many people in 1787 were discussing the constitution. The framers were very possibly occasionally were responding in their public comments to sentiment about the proposal of a constitution from random members of the public.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/essays/antifederalists-other-founders-american-constitutional

The Great Debate
The publication of the Constitution in September 1787 inaugurated one of the most vigorous political campaigns in American history. In the process of arguing over the merits of the new plan of government, Americans not only engaged in a lively inquiry into the meaning of constitutional government, they also helped make constitutionalism a central defining characteristic of American political culture. Although the Constitution had been drafted in private by a small select group of statesmen, its meaning was inescapably public. As soon as the results of the Philadelphia Convention became known, Americans began discussing the new frame of government. A week after the convention adjourned, one Philadelphian reported that “the new plan of government proposed by the Convention has made a bustle in the city and its vicinity.” Less than a month later, farther west in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, another observer noted that “the new Constitution for the United States seems now to engross the attention of all ranks.” In other parts of America similar observations were made. One Virginia commentator remarked that “the plan of a Government proposed to us by the Convention—affords matter for conversation to every rank of beings from the Governor to the door keeper.”[1]


Some accountability will give your position credibility. If you want to call 10,000 out of several millions many then so be it. I would not.




Unfortunately, thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration, the entire concept of a contractual government was put aside. Instead, a single political party put together a governmental structure embodied in the Constitution which was not and never has been a social contract, and which has never been a statement coming from "we, the people of the United States."

Beginning approximately in 1785, a couple of years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris which brought about our legal severance from England, a political party calling itself the "Federalists" was organized. This small but determined group put together the so-called Constitutional Convention of 1787 and managed to obtain a majority approval of the instrument they had designed as a new form of government. The delegates were bound to return their finding to the state legislatures which had authorized their sojourn in Philadelphia for the convention. But this was never done. The Federalists well knew that the instrument they had framed would be disapproved by every state legislature then in existence. Hence they wrote into the Constitution, Article VII, the process of ratification, specifying that the Constitution would obtain ratification from the conventions of nine states. This made it possible for the Federalists to avoid virtually certain rejection by the state legislatures and also placed control of the conventions in their hands. As the only organized political party, they carefully packed the separate conventions, making certain not to convene any of them until they were reasonably certain of a successful vote. This procedure, by itself, wipes out any possible assumption of legality or moral obligation.

The Constitution was drawn up by a single political faction, was subsequently read by fewer than 10,000 (that is a generous estimate — it probably fell far short of that number), and was approved by simple majorities with a total of fewer than 6,000 delegates participating in scattered conventions. Opposition was strong and the Constitution barely squeaked by in some states. Thus, the instrument was drafted and approved, in the main, only by a few people within a single political party. Yet the instrument purports to come from "we, the people of the United States."

In view of the undeveloped communications system, the absence of roads, and the huge size of the rural population, it is probable that a vast majority of Americans of European, Asian, or African origins didn't even know that conventions had been held or that an instrument had emerged claiming to be a contract with them.

At the time this was occurring, the total imported population was approximately three million people. By no stretch of the imagination can the deliberations of some six or seven thousand of that number be presumed to bind the total number within a contractual agreement.



The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452383-The-Illegality-Immorality-and-Violence-of-All-Political-Action&highlight=Illegality)

[Christopher A. Brown]

Were poor white folks allow to vote? Were black folks allow to vote? Were woman allow to vote?

Things have changed, now those people can vote. But most importantly is that the document does not say they cannot, and they now do.

However, there is another issue that is overarching. The act of 1871 and how that effected the federal government. There are unwritten manipulations that led to the civil war, there was collusion by the printed media to prevent Abraham Lincoln's speeches from being published.

With that considered, the intent of the constitution was subverted by foreign forces. Your position could very well be standing with them, because the true intent STILL has not manifested because of the collusion and you stand to deny it again.

[Christopher A. Brown]

If you want to call 10,000 out of several millions many then so be it. I would not.


But you would evade answering simple questions.


Let us simply work with the language and dispense with preconceptions in order to get a handle on intent. The beginning of the statements of intent are from 1776.

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

That general statement of the Declaration of Independence was codified as,

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,

With the preceding I've established the origin of intent, before the Articles of Confederation which was 1777. Let us look closely at that intent in the beginning.

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?
2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?
3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Accountability is vital to establish sincerity in a discussion of constitutional intent.
I do understand you point about the states wariness regarding the consolidation of power in one federal government despite the proposal that it be the mechanism of a republic defined by the principles of the constitution.
I would submit that the wariness was based in something else altogether. A fear not recorded in history. It was a valid fear, but, not a part of this discussion.

So please answer the questions.

[Ronin Truth]

But you would evade answering simple questions. Nah, I just hadn't even seen them previously..

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?

Nope just tyrannical and powerful enough to pull it off.

3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

Nope, talk, as in sales pitch, is often much different than the intended reality.

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Just reading the CONstitution shows they didn't and that was NEVER the intent. The theme of the entire CONstitution is POWER.


The CONstitution was never anything but a con job and a sneaky secret Federalist coup against the lawful Articles of Confederation.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Nah, I just hadn't even seen them previously..

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?

Nope just tyrannical and powerful enough to pull it off.

3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

Nope, talk, as in sales pitch, is often much different than the intended reality.

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Just reading the CONstitution shows they didn't and that was NEVER the intent. The theme of the entire CONstitution is POWER.


The CONstitution was never anything but a con job and a sneaky secret Federalist coup against the lawful Articles of Confederation.



At 1), You've evaded by referring to the constitution rather than the intent which was in the framers mind when the opportunity to create it was made. This agrees that the sabotage by loyalists to the king, of the framing documents, is dominant.

At 2), you say no then yes.

At 3), you attempt to replace the words of the Declaration with your interpretation of "sales pitch".

At 4), you refuse to answer and instead attempt to provide your interpretation of intent.

Basically, a logical conclusion is that you do not support that free speech have a purpose of assuring information vital to the unity needed to effect a lawful and peaceful revolution exist. Logically it is established that you have an agenda which is as yet unidentified but does not include using whatever exists to unite the people.

This behavior ignores that if the Articles of Confederation are indeed a better structure, that Americans have no lawful peaceful method of returning to them.

[Ronin Truth]

At 1), You've evaded by referring to the constitution rather than the intent which was in the framers mind when the opportunity to create it was made. This agrees that the sabotage by loyalists to the king, of the framing documents, is dominant.

At 2), you say no then yes.

At 3), you attempt to replace the words of the Declaration with your interpretation of "sales pitch".

At 4), you refuse to answer and instead attempt to provide your interpretation of intent.

Basically, a logical conclusion is that you do not support that free speech have a purpose of assuring information vital to the unity needed to effect a lawful and peaceful revolution exist. Logically it is established that you have an agenda which is as yet unidentified but does not include using whatever exists to unite the people.

This behavior ignores that if the Articles of Confederation are indeed a better structure, that Americans have no lawful peaceful method of returning to them.

Ya just get what you get. Don't like it? OK. <shrug>

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

'Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” ' -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President (1801-1809)

[Christopher A. Brown]

Ya just get what you get. Don't like it? OK. <shrug>

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

'Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” ' -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President (1801-1809)

Notice he did not say bloody or violent revolution. Article V is a revolution of the people of the states where they independently control their states with the prime intents of the federal constitution in mind. Only the people can do that, not the federal government.

See the grand jury thread for how an Article V convention corrects the function of the 10th amendment.

Then the states reform the federal government by amendment of the constitution.

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

[Ronin Truth]

Notice he did not say bloody or violent revolution. Article V is a revolution of the people of the states where they independently control their states with the prime intents of the federal constitution in mind. Only the people can do that, not the federal government.

See the grand jury thread for how an Article V convention corrects the function of the 10th amendment.

Then the states reform the federal government by amendment of the constitution.

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

Nope.

[Christopher A. Brown]

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

Nope.

Then you would attempt to assert that the framers did not intend for Americans to preserve unalienable rights by altering or abolishing government destructive to them.

Or, you can produce another method other than freedom of speech to enable the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to vital rights.

Which is it?

[Ronin Truth]

Then you would attempt to assert that the framers did not intend for Americans to preserve unalienable rights by altering or abolishing government destructive to them.

Or, you can produce another method other than freedom of speech to enable the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to vital rights.

Which is it? My usual answer to almost all false dichotomies. Neither.

[Christopher A. Brown]

My usual answer to almost all false dichotomies. Neither.

Ah, the quest for accountability from ronin continues.

Without filling pages with text, can you state what the framers truly intended when defining the right to alter or abolish?

Or, is your post simply more evasion?

[Ronin Truth]

Ah, the quest for accountability from ronin continues.

Without filling pages with text, can you state what the framers truly intended when defining the right to alter or abolish?

Or, is your post simply more evasion?

No.

[Christopher A. Brown]

No.

Then why are you failing to provide reasonable explanations and answers?

It appears you are lying to evade any reasonable accountability.

[Ronin Truth]

Then why are you failing to provide reasonable explanations and answers?

It appears you are lying to evade any reasonable accountability.

I really don't mind that you're wrong.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I really don't mind that you're wrong.

And you have no proof of that while I have your post history in this thread I can refer viewers to showing I am correct.

Here is where it starts in this thread.


Nah, I just hadn't even seen them previously..

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?

Nope just tyrannical and powerful enough to pull it off.

3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

Nope, talk, as in sales pitch, is often much different than the intended reality.

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Just reading the CONstitution shows they didn't and that was NEVER the intent. The theme of the entire CONstitution is POWER.


The CONstitution was never anything but a con job and a sneaky secret Federalist coup against the lawful Articles of Confederation.

[Ronin Truth]

And you have no proof of that while I have your post history in this thread I can refer viewers to showing I am correct.

Here is where it starts in this thread.


You are absolutely correct, I really don't have any proof that I really don't mind that you're wrong again.

[Christopher A. Brown]

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)


Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

[Ronin Truth]

Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[Christopher A. Brown]

Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.


'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr



I'm glad you and others found Spooner. He is very insightful, but not comprehensive.

For example, does Spooner describe the effect of the Masonic Order upon American politics? Does he indicate competing factions within the order that unconsciously work to push the government towards or away from constitutionality?

Does Thomas Woods?

Is the below true?



You are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

[Ronin Truth]

I'm glad you and others found Spooner. He is very insightful, but not comprehensive.

For example, does Spooner describe the effect of the Masonic Order upon American politics? Does he indicate competing factions within the order that unconsciously work to push the government towards or away from constitutionality?

Does Thomas Woods?

Is the below true?

I'm for free speech, do with it as you will, as will I.

BTW, screw the Freemasons.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?

[Ronin Truth]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?

I think I just continue to mostly rely on intelligence, skill, luck and firepower to protect myself and family. It's all worked out pretty well so far.

If I were you, I'd only follow Spooner if you like and agree with him.

Why on Earth else would you ever choose to follow him? DUH!

Neither! Yet another bogus false dichotomy rejected. :p :rolleyes:

[Christopher A. Brown]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?


I think I just continue to mostly rely on intelligence, skill, luck and firepower to protect myself and family. It's all worked out pretty well so far.

If I were you, I'd only follow Spooner if you like and agree with him.

Why on Earth else would you ever choose to follow him? DUH!

Neither! Yet another bogus false dichotomy rejected. :p :rolleyes:

^=evasion

[Ronin Truth]

^=evasion

Clueless. ^

[Christopher A. Brown]

Clueless. ^

You can say that, but you do not have the intent of the Declaration of Independence behind you. Such intent led to Article V, which means you are part of a group here working against unity that can alter or abolish the federal government.

[HVACTech]

You can say that, but you do not have the intent of the Declaration of Independence behind you. Such intent led to Article V, which means you are part of a group here working against unity that can alter or abolish the federal government.

stop playing with the shills! be a man and finish the fight you picked with me!!!! :mad:

[Christopher A. Brown]

stop playing with the shills! be a man and finish the fight you picked with me!!!! :mad:

Be a pleasure, remind me of what that is.

[HVACTech]

Be a pleasure, remind me of what that is.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?474480-When-did-the-2nd-US-Constitution-die-1911-or-1933

[Ronin Truth]

You can say that, but you do not have the intent of the Declaration of Independence behind you. Such intent led to Article V, which means you are part of a group here working against unity that can alter or abolish the federal government.

When you've got it abolished halfway I'll probably join in for the remainder (if I'm still alive).

Go and fight with the Arkansas A/C service guy. LOL!

[Christopher A. Brown]

When you've got it abolished halfway I'll probably join in for the remainder (if I'm still alive).

Go and fight with the Arkansas A/C service guy. LOL!

You would assume it needs to be abolished. I'm not so sure of that. Some severe alterations might make it work okay.

One thing is for sure, alterations will have to be tried, then if it turns out it's as dangerous as it's been, then abolition is in order.

Currently to many of the people are dependent on it, so altering it to a degree where the people become educated and independent is wise.

It doesn't matter what kind of government you have; or no government at all; if the people do not have the knowledge to survive, they suffer. Tyrants impose ignorance to create dependence if they can't outright dominate with fear of death and violence.

Your efforts have no planned order, so by default, they will lead to immense suffering, and perhaps the mounting of violent tyranny, because you certainly aren't seeing to the education of people.

You are not thinking about people and their needs. I am. With unity and a lawful peaceful revolution, we can impose our majority will upon the government and first purify it of unconstitutional officials, then restore the republic it was intended to be with constitutional intent. From that position, after a good degree of education over mass media converted from exploitation and manipulation to education and guidance with real information to form accurate opinion with, democracy can slowly shape the republic into dinething that might be able to abolish itself, after creating a people that can fully take care of themselves.

Currently, they do not even know that free speech has a vital purpose. Including you.

[JK/SEA]

You would assume it needs to be abolished. I'm not so sure of that. Some severe alterations might make it work okay.

One thing is for sure, alterations will have to be tried, then if it turns out it's as dangerous as it's been, then abolition is in order.

Currently to many of the people are dependent on it, so altering it to a degree where the people become educated and independent is wise.

It doesn't matter what kind of government you have; or no government at all; if the people do not have the knowledge to survive, they suffer. Tyrants impose ignorance to create dependence if they can't outright dominate with fear of death and violence.

Your efforts have no planned order, so by default, they will lead to immense suffering, and perhaps the mounting of violent tyranny, because you certainly aren't seeing to the education of people.

You are not thinking about people and their needs. I am. With unity and a lawful peaceful revolution, we can impose our majority will upon the government and first purify it of unconstitutional officials, then restore the republic it was intended to be with constitutional intent. From that position, after a good degree of education over mass media converted from exploitation and manipulation to education and guidance with real information to form accurate opinion with, democracy can slowly shape the republic into dinething that might be able to abolish itself, after creating a people that can fully take care of themselves.

Currently, they do not even know that free speech has a vital purpose. Including you.


Free speech?...how about this for free speech. Your 'rhetoric' is 'drool donkey' bloody pus drippings.

am i in your club now?

[Ronin Truth]

You would assume it needs to be abolished. I'm not so sure of that. Some severe alterations might make it work okay.

One thing is for sure, alterations will have to be tried, then if it turns out it's as dangerous as it's been, then abolition is in order.

Currently to many of the people are dependent on it, so altering it to a degree where the people become educated and independent is wise.

It doesn't matter what kind of government you have; or no government at all; if the people do not have the knowledge to survive, they suffer. Tyrants impose ignorance to create dependence if they can't outright dominate with fear of death and violence.

Your efforts have no planned order, so by default, they will lead to immense suffering, and perhaps the mounting of violent tyranny, because you certainly aren't seeing to the education of people.

You are not thinking about people and their needs. I am. With unity and a lawful peaceful revolution, we can impose our majority will upon the government and first purify it of unconstitutional officials, then restore the republic it was intended to be with constitutional intent. From that position, after a good degree of education over mass media converted from exploitation and manipulation to education and guidance with real information to form accurate opinion with, democracy can slowly shape the republic into dinething that might be able to abolish itself, after creating a people that can fully take care of themselves.

Currently, they do not even know that free speech has a vital purpose. Including you. No assume about it.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Free speech?...how about this for free speech. Your 'rhetoric' is 'drool donkey' bloody pus drippings.

am i in your club now?

Not my club. You are in the club that is against a lawful and peaceful revolution that defends the constitution and restores government under it. But you knew that.

[JK/SEA]

Not my club. You are in the club that is against a lawful and peaceful revolution that defends the constitution and restores government under it. But you knew that.

really?..wow...guess i wasted my time with Ron Paul then...i got elected to PCO, then became a State Delegate, donated hundreds to Ron, and you have the fucking temerity to come in here and insult true Patriots, this board, and Ron Paul with your broad brush ignorant rhetoric.

You sir are nothing but a weak kneed wannabe, and you should give evidence of what your 'activist' line of thinking has accomplished besides shitting on this forum.

In closing....go suck a sour pickle. Shouldn't be too difficult for ya....

[Anti Federalist]

From a post in another, now closed, thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473673-Live-now-Baltimore-looting-burning-rioting/page33


Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown

Curious, that the only person who has a solution and plan to address this wide spread problem is myself.

No, you are not the only one, with the only solution.

There are many people, working on many different angles, at many different levels, attacking this issue from many different directions.

Each have their pros and cons, each have their proper moments to be used.

All need to be used, no stone left unturned.

[Occam's Banana]

From a post in another, now closed, thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473673-Live-now-Baltimore-looting-burning-rioting/page33


Curious, that the only person who has a solution and plan to address this wide spread problem is myself.

Another satisfied customer of One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE)!

Christopher A. Brown has his. Have you got yours?

Don't be a cog-infil agent!! Get your One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE) today!

[Anti Federalist]

Another satisfied customer of One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE)!

Christopher A. Brown has his. Have you got yours?

Don't be a cog-infil agent!! Get your One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE) today!

Ordering now.

[Christopher A. Brown]

really?..wow...guess i wasted my time with Ron Paul then...i got elected to PCO, then became a State Delegate,

You can post lots of BS, that's for sure.

But can you reasonably respond to a single question?

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

[Christopher A. Brown]

Another satisfied customer of One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE)!

Christopher A. Brown has his. Have you got yours?

Don't be a cog-infil agent!! Get your One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403724-One-True-Path-to-Liberty%AE) today!

OB, thanks for the PR tip! I've got the hang of it.


Yes! Cease being influenced by covert agents pretending to care about the constitution and liberty. You too can envision a constitutional republic and assure the tyrants of Walmartia cannot complete their plot of dominance!

End that putrid smell around your television, newspaper and computer, especially while while logged into forums. Even this one.

With your dedicated use of this fully lawful plan, personally guaranteed by Thomas Jeffereson himself, you will proudly and safely walk the
One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution)!

Accept no fakes, experience the breathless feeling of hope investing in the fact that all Americans, even morons and young children can readily accept without hesitation!

Rest assured that all of your pissing and moaning will amount to a new golden age for Americans, if not all of humanity when freedom of speech gains an official purpose! Your One True Path to Liberty® (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution) package contains simple easy to understand steps that assure Americans can lawfully, completely control government, even abolish it if our steps to liberty are not carefully followed by the wanna-be despots now yanking your chain.

See free speech gain profound purpose.

See your carefully cast vote finally mean something!

End the scurrilous corrupt funding of political campaigns forever.

Accept no substitutes, no empty plans, only invest in this path carefully carved out of the framing documents for you and your loved ones to follow into our glorious future.

[Christopher A. Brown]

really?..wow...guess i wasted my time with Ron Paul then...i got elected to PCO, then became a State Delegate,


You can post lots of BS, that's for sure.

But can you reasonably respond to a single question?

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


JK/SEA cannot reasonably respond to a single question without exposing himself as opposing the constitution and defense of the rights under it. But JK/SEA can make neg rep comments that are comprised of exactly what the comment accuses me of.



brilliant...bravo..more ignorant bullshit...but then you knew that.

This unaccountability is treasonous.

[Christopher A. Brown]

From a post in another, now closed, thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473673-Live-now-Baltimore-looting-burning-rioting/page33



No, you are not the only one, with the only solution.

There are many people, working on many different angles, at many different levels, attacking this issue from many different directions.

Each have their pros and cons, each have their proper moments to be used.

All need to be used, no stone left unturned.

Umm, you left out addressing the "widespread part".

Angles, yes, lots of them. But nothing that is comprehensive to ALL of the issues. That requires a government responsive to the people because the people are too divided on all the angles. We can agree however, that government is not constitutional, making many more problems instead of solving them.

[Christopher A. Brown]

stop playing with the shills! be a man and finish the fight you picked with me!!!! :mad:

Judging from your terms used in posting recently; and your failure to answer certain key questions, which you appropriately noticed, without saying so; but the change in terms and perspective indicates realization, that the fight was different than you thought it was.

It is still different, but the fact you realized enough to move perspective is a good indication of sincerity.

As I've said many times. Agents do not have oppose everything the people are doing to stop the them from defending, enforcing and restoring the constitution over government, they only have to block the routes of success.

What is critical to the American peoples success is a capacity to define constitutional intent.

You asked in another thread, "Why do you keep adding an (s) to intent?".

I do so because their are a number of intents, just as their are a number of unalienable rights. However, there is only a set of intents that are vital to constitutional defense and the beginning of enforcement.

Those are; the right to alter or abolish and the means to unify effectively to get the job done.

Freedom of speech serves the purpose of unity and it serves to inform after implemented under the logic of preparatory amendment. Once the purpose of free speech is restored in this society, the rest is a snowball, and the infiltration that abandoned the 1787 constitution know it.

Therefore agents are SPECIFICALLY directed to act in ways that interfere in the purpose of free speech, which primarily creates an understanding. Hence the term "cognitive infiltration". Understanding is a requisite for unity.

Now, if your understanding has reached a point of comprehension that includes the wildfire simplicity of what is really a trident of freedom, because triple edged swords don't work for mortals, you are ready to fully separate yourself from the infiltrations misleading.

That said, do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

[JK/SEA]

dammit Chris, i'm writing letters as fast as i can...lighten up. Could you send me some money for stamps please?...tx...