Can we believe anything!

Okay, I see how the treaty kept England's fingers in the pie. And that was an issue at the civil war underlying the covert financing of the union army.

With the act of 1871, it did not take but a couple of generations for unalienable rights to become a joke for government behind the wall of manipulation by media that was rising up with corporate globalism.

The question is, "Can Americans take logical action to oppose it?"

 

I think we can through article 5 alter and abolish. The problem is I think we need a majority and right now the majority is convinced they are free and they always have been. To them uncle Sam is not the problem it's Muslims and people like us. That's why they are constantly telling us to leave when we talk against uncle Sam.
How do you propose we go about alter and abolish. Do we petition?

 

I am so stunned by your post. That you expressed desire to know more about something you had limited knowledge or understanding of.... That is so remarkably rare.
I will be looking for your other posts hoping we can learn from one another.
Industrialized countries are bombarded by various things intended to influence and manipulate. Advertising and media couldn't exist without it.

Freedom of speech in the US protects EVERY kind of speech. All of it, good, bad, truth, lie.
You might get your tail beat for saying stupid things, but it is universally supported and fiercely protected.

Perspective is everything. Your glass is half empty or half full. Hope yours is the latter!

 

I agree, that is the current grow political mentality. Yes, we petition, but after getting the snowball rolling with agreement upon prime constitutional intent, and it will snowball.

There needs to be a focused effort to get the various organizations involved as a byline to their main purposes. Or, with the basis for altering or abolishing, agreement upon prime constitutional right, they can always change their main political action to supporting the lawful and peaceful revolution through preparation for Article V.

This is the first phase of preparation, right here. Creating a body of people that understand and agree upon prime constitutional right which protects unalienable rights. That agreement will be expanded upon learning it by any who are aware that the government is the problem and is tired of being mislead and lied to by media with partisan politics. And since we are discussing what UNCLE SAM is supposed to stand for, the constitution, principles of the republic etc., the potentials for rejection are reasonably very low.

This is why after I was banned form the patriot action.net, every single one of my posts and all threads were removed. It is a tea party site and the koch bros. $ is behind it still. And the Koch bros. are trying to hijack an Article V convention.

You recall Levins 30 minute video where he says one thing to legislators at just before 10min and another to people worried about a runaway convention at 29mi+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6xEHPkYE1g

The simple fact that none of the partisan efforts can protect unalienable rights is actually known by the people that choose to superficiously believe the politicians and media colluding with them. They do not want to admit that, they are afraid of working against the social structure they grew up in and know.

Movements like OWS have confused them. So OWS needs to be dealt with. They are actually working against rights and freedom with their "non-agenda" which is purely social identity "99%" etc.

I was banned under 15 usernames for trying to protect the social agreement that created the rights used in Zuccotti park

http://occupywallst.org/forum/

They have no real plan. I continually asked for that, and it was pure ambiguity coming back. Basically I see the high level educational system of colleges and universities used against the interests of the republic, trying to move towards socialism. So naturally, social structures are why matters, not principles or logic.

It's probably a good idea to make solid agreement upon prime principle with good appreciation for legal process that uses it to control states, then enter into an Article V convention with 3/4 of the states to effect preparation for involving the rest of America too afraid to even question the lies of the TV in their living rooms.

Occupy is comprised of some very good people, but the indoctrination of the young into anarchistic ways of thinking is a pure fantasy and not functional outside of their small cliques that engage the fantasy as if it was a plan. Its not a plan, it has no features of a plan, just vague, undefined ideals and principles that are not anchored in any common agreement with historical merit.

Accordingly, it is probably very wise to form small groups that spread the agreement and acceptance of the peoples exclusive right and duty through web forums to define constitutional intent for use at Article V.

 

I am not familiar with any members of OWS or the tea party but I imagine there are good people in both movements with good intentions. The non agenda from ows is designed to eat up good people's time to accomplish breaking their spirits and give up hope of change all together. It has been a very effective tactic throughout history.

Do you think there are any good judges that would support an article V process. I'm inclined to believe the whole legal system is allied with the throne of England, since they pretty much are.

I agree site's like PF is a good place to find people that are sick of the lies and they are ready to have real change. They just need a push in the right direction to find the truth or close to the truth as possible. And yes freedom of speech is vital to inform others of alter and abolish. With out it 3/4 of the state's can not be unified. I believe there is constitutional intent, The act of 1871 is unconstitutional, along with the 16th and 14th amendment The POTUS war time powers etc...

 

My sig says a good part of that more directly.

 

I spent a great deal of time there, I believe I spotted a team that is covert and quiet sophisticated. Major socialist agenda cloaked in edgy know-it-all new age BS. There was an admin, "Jart" who was also admin at the "signs of the times", (sott), Laura Jadzyk knight posted there. I was banned after their refusal to use logic and evidence related to structural issues with the Twin towers and 9/11.
A poster , "girl Friday" (gf) at OWS and the admin jart headed about 10 posters who worked to make day into night with their unaccountable agreement. gf attempted to associate me with ALEC because I was pro Article V. I'd barely heard of them.

I checked them out, saw they were a PAC, wet dream for WTO corporations and not interested in constitutional intent. To demonstrate the difference between ALEC and where I come from I started an online petition, "Do ALEC and COS want an Article V convention with constitutional intent?"

gf and about 10 others started a thread with completely false information to discredit me and prevent me from using the forum to create a petition to ask ALEC to explain their position on prime constitutional intent.

The forum also used shado banning. Your user name gets a status where only you and some of the covert agents you are dealing with can see the posts.
You discover this when you sign in with another username and cannot find the posts of the other usernames.

There are some good judges I think. They are never assigned controversial cases tho.

One very serious thing done within the entire circuit court system is blocking access to the good judges. There used to be a local court rule that assigned a new magistrate and judge to any pro se civil rights case that was filed, dismissed then re filed with NEW coplaintiffs. It was secretly removed, no note of revision was left showing the rule removed. A serious violation of the us district courts administrative office regulation.

So lawsuits that need to be filed by many citizens and heard with constitutional judges have no access to said judges. No access to a real court.

Treating the courts as if they are aligned with the throne but giving very clear powerful constitutional alignment as an out for the good judges will probably work given persistent litigation in am effort to get the purpose of free speech to operate enough to defend the constitution.

With this agreement passionately supported by 5,000 people, things can happen when they join to litigate in strict defense of the constitution.

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

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

The dynamics of that represent our most valuable and first right, which is used to protect all other rights.

 

Some Associated Press articles are reportedly now being written by nonhuman robots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/30/robot-journalism-ap-automated-insights_n_6579210.html

 

Deeper into this issue is this story.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5594873
What is a disturbing is the reporter does not know enough about what is exclusively human to trip up the robot.

Of course your point about robots posting news stories is well taken and concerns that are "exclusively human" may easily not be well reported by robots.

 

Maybe you are familiar with this link. It is human robots parroting what is perhaps a press release from the Treasury Department:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dguiAWrUGMM

 

About six months ago I read an article about Pope Francis defending Pope Pius XII for his holocaust records. Pope Francis made a statement basically confirming the holocaust denial story of the allies bombing a railway even though they knew it supplied some of the concentration camp's with food and supplies. Now I tried to find it for another thread and the story has been changed to say he said the allies could have done more by bombing the railways that transferred Jews to these camps or the story has been completely removed from the web. Propaganda at it's finest! I am just glad I had a chance to read the original article before the clean up crew came in. Here is the changed story...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-defends-piuss-record-during-world-war-ii-1402677274

and here is where the article was removed please notice the difference in the link one is a strongly defended and one is just defended....

http://angelqueen.org/2014/06/13/pope-francis-strongly-defends-legacy-of-pius-xii/

oh and that one article is totally removed.

 

It does seam to be a common thing going on there in the Vatican. It is apparent the Catholic church denies the holocaust.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/26/pope.holocaust.denial/index.html?iref=24hours

 

There are elements of truth in your statement but this does not apply in all situations. This applies in our economic situations as well. If some people make lots of money he can enjoy buying things and this can at one end helps the economy grow at the other end this will trigger inflation. In Nepal for instance there is a short of so many essentials. For instance, observing imminent shortage of the essentials like fuel, cooking gas some rich persons are hoarding both gas and fuel that is creating artificial shortages

 

Nothing applies all the time when you are talking about people. Sure we can believe some things. I mostly point to history and politics. I recently exposed a cover up of pope Francis's comments when defending pope Pius XII. Basically confirming the story that denies the holocaust. The story has been cleverly changed to cover up what he really said. I was in another thread about anti Semitimism and wanted to repost it but when I searched for it on Google the Catholic Herald article about it couldn't be found. That wall st journal was at the top of the list and the story had been changed to say the allies could have done more like by bombing the railway taking Jews to the camps. His original statement said why do we have to talk about Pope Pius why don't we talk about how the allies bombed the railway that supplied those camps even though they knew that was how those camps were supplied. Or close to that statement with out the original article I can't quote him word for word. I posted the new story by wsj and a link to the removed article in post #111 here in this thread

 

Absolutely agree. Both sides are lying they're a** off. All they care about is their pockets. They don't care about healthcare, borders, foreign policy, guns, education, etc. They only care about the money. This is why I want Ben Carson. He is completely out of the political spectrum, and yet is giving them a run for their money. He also wants to create term limits for every public servant category. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the I.R.S. (awesome!). He wants a flat tax based off the biblical tithes (10%) and is not ashamed to say it. He just retired as a physician and does not want to run for president but feels he has to, because of the dire position our future is in jeopardy of. That tells me he is not doing it for money or fame but simply for the Country. If he is not lying than that to me is a real leader (president). And if he is lying than it doesn't hurt to vote for him anyway.