Can we believe anything!

Bravo!

 

You can.




​

 

I believe many things. You ought to know taxpayer.

 

You can believe one thing for sure, the government is always evil.

 

Power corrupts every time. Absolutely! You can take that to the bank.

 

Being advised, observant and provocative, I've tested that negativity to see if its real or a front. Some is not real and here is the advisory.

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

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

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

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

Some people have been conditioned to only be able to think of online activism as posting about the negative. They can be influenced, but not the others.

In this environment we have to use absolutes that serve our ability to defend our rights and freedoms. Anonymity serves the infiltrators too well, so we must compensate to know who is real.

If a person is real, and sincere about rights and freedom, they need to step forward and take an action an infiltrator would never take. One that is positive and leads to unity.

This however is hard to understand and if one hasn't opposed the infiltration with good information to draw them out, it's perhaps not easy to justify what is logical, reasonable right or constitutional. Yea, . . . The confusion created by the infiltrations is that deep and mired in negativity.

I can tell by the nature of your post that you are very likely a critical
thinker and may understand what I've just posted. If that's the case, and your fear levels are not too high, this inquiry will be easily answered in the affirmative.

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?

BTW, you are correct about avoiding the negativity and escaping the depression. In fact I can atest to the fact that knowing each sincere American can make the above agreement and also having strategy for a lawful and peaceful revolution has turned me into an optimist

 

You can't change the amounts of news, but you can watch the news infrequently. It's people's own decision..., but not really of course. Human nature doesn't allow them to watch the news infrequently. You have to talk to yourself, and say, today I am not going to read the news and I am not going to talk about it. Today I am going to pay attention to my garden or hobby, etc.

In other words instruct yourself. "hey mind of my, today you are not going to watch the news". You have to force yourself not to grab that remote control, keyboard, touch screen or smartphone.

 

I'm not American and don't know enough about the framers to have an opinion but if any external agency is psychologically manipulating an individual's thoughts and feelings without their consent and/or knowledge then that agency is to be denied so I presume that more or less agrees.

My take on freedom of speech is it exists to speak truth to power without fear of sanction but that it's become perverted because what I actually see is it being abused in order to persecute and offend.

Everything is made up! What's the point in making up a life for ourselves which includes negative thinking which then goes on to cause untold misery and illness?

 

Okay, that's a succinct answer for sure.

But perhaps your unfamiliarity with Americas framing documents and the aggregate intent cause you to separate the two questions which are really a part of manifesting the same right within the question.

The Declaration of Independence grants the right to alter or abolish. This is confirmed but given to the states with Article V of the constitution, which is actual law. Implying, that for the right to alter or abolish to exist, the people have to control the states.

Therein it is implied that the people must have the unity required to control their states. Through the unity the lawful, political power over states by the people is rightfully gained. That unity is only possible if free speech serves the purpose of enabling it.

Meaning that without stating it, the framers intended it to be that way.

They were under a social assault that was intended to fragment and sabotage the development of the clear intentions through the various documents created. That assault was successful.

Lincoln however, with a fresher view than we have, made a statement which creates an appropriate overview; "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

Agreed 100%, which is why I focus primarily upon expanding an understanding of this right and its potential for our futures.

America is so influential; in the global situation with regard to diplomacy and environmental concerns; that the proposed revolution could very easily prevent eventual species extinction. Which despite the harrowing implications, I consider to be a very positive position.

 

After reading about operation mocking bird I have come to the conclusion we can't believe anything the media has to say. It's appalling and inflammatory, and it makes me sick! Here is a small "government controlled" explanation of the program, but I recommend googling it and reading an independent source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

 

A honest thread, funny. Yes i realized too there' s no good or evil we are all pursuing our interests one way or another. Isis identifies us as the ultimate evil, we do the same with them, there's no end to this, it's like a loop.

 

I doubt that Operation Mockingbird is responsible for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dguiAWrUGMM

How does that happen? Seriously. Are any of you personally acquainted with some kind of journalist who knows how this happens?

 

I disagree I am sure mockingbird is all over putting out this story. For one it's about a fictional character mixed in with some reality and it's the same line word for word over 100 different news stations through out the country. No doubt it's prime example of the power of operation mockingbird.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82279 They haven't been wrong in 200 years. Now that is absolutely amazing or our votes don't really count. I tend to believe the votes don't count.

 

Very good to bring that up, it is a constant issue, and not just in the media. There are also;

Operation Clear Eyes
" " Monarch
" " Artichoke
Project Bluebird

All under MKultra

A list of programs/operations
http://ensemble.va.com.au/tableau/suzy/TT_ResearchProjects/Hexen2039/PsyO/mkultra.html

Actions speak louder than words, and many words are an action. Accountability is the only measure of integrity.

This, besides being a part of prime constitutional intent, is also a test for those programmed to serve tyranny, and not know it. They won't be able to make the agreement because it defeats their masters who created their agenda.

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?

 

tell that to the kliens, their beliefs cost them 135,000 in penalties and fines and destroyed their ability to support themselves when the gubmint interfered with their religion and decided the gay religion is todays religion of gubmint choice.

 

That's what they get for dealing with the Ferengis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG0ipvIoFZs

 

Hmmm. This is more philosophy than politics, but whatever.

People want a coherent orderly reality. People want to be on the "right" side of things, no one wants to be a villain. People want to be admired and be successful.

If you can disconnect yourself from those desires (and the fear of their absence) , what's real becomes more obvious.

 

Of course I agree with that. The framers didn't put free speech in the constitution so we could say what ever we want without any repercussions. In fact if you insulated someone under constitutional law it was very likely you would have a fist planted on your nose or worst case scenario a colt 45 slug through the head.

 

Excellent, let me add a little to a key sentence of yours;

"The framers didn't put free speech in the constitution ULTIMATELY so we could say what ever we want without any repercussions." there were other, higher purposes also. Sadly, however, undefined.

I'm having to explain that to thinkitout, here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=424514&page=12&p=1065380530#post1065380530

Treating the 1st amendment like a sacred cow, afraid to amend it, without recognizing its ultimate purpose is undefined, but also vital, is quite illogical.

To me it is quite silly to have the "unalienable rights" only defined in the Declaration of Independence" which is not law, then grant free speech supposedly unrelated to unalienable rights and the intent of "alter or abolish" in Article V. Looks like contract sabotage by lawyers to me.

 

I am sure it was designed that way in purpose. The whole thing was pipe dream that barely got off the ground for 10 years before it crashed back down with the Jay treaty. They did let them pretend to be free up until the civil war and then the king of England had seen enough using slavery as a pretext since they had outlawed it a few years earlier.

 

History mentions a great deal contentious stuff, but most of it is states issues and anti federalist. But the principles of the a Declaration of Independence beg and promise integration into law, then it doesn't happen.

It's pretty clear to me that those who authored it had a passion, but after the war, other social powers gained a great deal of influence and they carefully focused on structure. So
much so some states refused to sign without the bill of rights.

In that environment, it pretty obvious those trying to maintain myopia on structure are doing it for a reason. They want to busy the legislative body with mechanistic legal things.

Unalienable rights are not that, they are things the people have great passion about. Accordingly after states refused to sign, the Tory controlled legislators fought to prevent clarity on key aspects vital to altering or abolishing, so the first amendment had its logical legal teeth, that were plainly stated that enabled unity were pulled.

However, as the people, it is our right to derive the tents of the constitution from the full set of framing documents. Therein is also the right to infer what framers fully intended, but could not get past the Tory control. They got the inference fully in the documents, but it is up to us to use that right to infer, among many others "reserved to the people".

 

Having done a little research on the Jay treaty, my point of the last post about the Tory ability to create social pressure is made in this account.

The Federalists fought back and Congress rejected the Jefferson–Madison counter-proposals. Washington threw his great prestige behind the treaty, and Federalists rallied public opinion more effectively than did their opponents.[17] Hamilton convinced President Washington it was the best treaty that could be expected.

So your point about making treaty with the Monarchy is valid, but only applies to trade and commerce. The issue of unalienable rights and how to defend them is a completely different order of business at the root of sovereignty.

Of course the federalists were pushing against state sovereignty, which is another way to say against individual rights of the people. But we would be amiss to allow the Jay treaty authority even remotely related to influencing or compromising the defense of unalienable rights.

Clearly, the presence of the treaty tempted and encouraged the federalists to attempt compromise to those rights which was Jeffersons Madisons point.

 

The other side of printing BS propaganda is not reporting embarrassing facts.

If the Associated Press mentions this issue, please let me know:

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/09/18/centcom-made-clear-bad-news-on-isis-wasnt-welcome/

 

The Jay treaty made every American responsible for the debt owed to the king and his descendent's (todays income tax) Hamilton used income made at the bank of America to pay this debt for years until it was no more feasible. Then it piled up until the 16th amendment. Thus the ultimate reason for today's enslavement. You are right though some people did live out there lives with unalienable rights. They even had such rights up until the early 1900's. I imagine the ultra wealthy families like Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, and a couple others still enjoy such rights today. Since we have willfully enslaved ourselves unknowingly there must have been those that knew better.