Our Lawful And Peaceful Revolution - Defense & Enforcement of the Constitution.

Some history and a description of the environment our lawful and peaceful revolution will take place in America.

Since the very first framing document in 1776, the right to alter or abolish government destructive to rights has been a primary intent of the framers. The later 1787 constitution codified it as Article V. Both define our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution.

Thomas Jefferson envisioned such a revolution every generation. By the early 1800's, it's fairly visible in his writing that he is wondering why there hasn't been one and wants to see one.

A couple of factors seem to be controlling. One, there was a constant influx of immigrants that were not familiar with the options of protecting rights and freedoms. Two, the printed word seems to have pandered to the sensations a great deal. Ostensibly for profits, but also, basically diverting American focus from protecting rights and freedoms to social sensations or greed and fantasy. Easily an agenda of the elite. (*)

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”(*)

― Thomas Jefferson

Indicating a lot of misleading may have been common,

It turns out a factor of human psychology tied to physiology could very easily be to blame, even exploited. Because of left and right hemisphere control over perceptional capacity and potentials, what is spoken and heard always uses cognitive capacity whereas writing or reading, might be done without as much cognitive capacity.

A factor relating to the control over newspapers plagued Lincoln. They would mostly not print his speeches. He spoke a great deal, but only those hearing knew what he had said, and for the most part were very impressed. Very few of his campaign speeches were published even in part in the times they were presented. One that was was in his home state, Illinois stand out. From that 1859 speech we learn he was an avid supporter of an Article V convention with the impressive passage, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

Clearly, Lincoln could only be working for an Article V convention to try and avert civil war. But, the elements that wanted war controlled the printing presses, so his thoughts on preserving the union peacefully were not written. What was written were the words inflaming anger and resentment towards the south.* Coupling that with the many speeches against the south created a desire for war amongst many people of the north despite the fact that the north was all(*)but impoverished.

Herein we have an opening for an old enemy of rights and freedoms. The descendants of king john and the barons who signed the Magna Carta. The main financiers of the union army. Some say the Rothschild money was primary.(*) A friend did research while in the north east about 15 years ago and found that Tory influence in Nova Scotia was the destination of 40 shiploads of machine tools for making weapons that were brought in by trains of heavy wagons for months across the northern borders. Local histories could not be erased.

At any rate, there was a very quiet takeover and abandonment of the 1787 constitution that occurred with the act of 1871. And that, in advanced form, is what we are confronting today in our federal government.

That infiltration of course, always has and does, oppose Article V, our right to a lawful and peaceful revolution.

At this point the issue of covert manipulation infiltrating American activism on the internet and elsewhere should be mentioned. Some of it originates from the UK or other commonwealth countries.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-manipulation/

Other sources could be from the US.

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

Basically their agenda is to prevent Americans from understanding and unifying around any strategy that could politically upset their current control or lead to any unity whatsoever opposing their agendas. Simply keeping Americans focused on the wrong things is plenty to block understanding which is the key to unity. Partisan politics is certainly a mainstay of preventing this revolution and always has been.

The observant and objective member on web forums has certainly noticed this.

Accordingly, members here that refuse to agree or accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish, could easily be covert agents or very much influenced by them. Particularly if involved with attacks against the concept. Others that will not agree with that purpose of free speech could easily be simply influenced by the infiltration and be acting within what have become normal and natural social fears. This is what cognitive infiltration hopes for and depends upon. Here is some substance defining the existence of covert infiltrations.

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.

So by no means am I implying everyone is a cognitive infiltrator. I am saying there are quite a few agents and most everyone has been influenced to varying degrees by the false agreement exhibited between the infiltrators regarding the purpose of free speech as well as other political issues.

The legal and constitutional mechanisms of our lawful and peaceful revolution.

This is actually an exceedingly simple plan. It's based on natural law, which is by definition almost a no-brainer. Our instincts provide the prime criteria for acceptance.

This prime criteria is "the purpose of free speech".(*) Seriously, all of our rights have(*) a purpose. I focus on that because many Americans know the key words of the Declaration of Independence (DOI) well enough from memory to confirm what I assert. Americans do know enough of the DOI by heart to simply use the logic and reason I put forth to prove my point when I describe the purpose of free speech. The infiltration exposes itself with unreasonable opposition to the purpose of free speech with each failure to be accountable and reasonable. They can never be either, it is a lose-lose for them.(*)

The ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the peoples unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

The odds philosophically are heavily in our favor as free people under our constitution or law because the constitution or the documents which framed its intent include the biologically correct philosophies of natural law. Our social, phylogenetic instincts in action reacting and relating to one another under stress in pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (notice the order there) guide us towards survival.

The purpose of free speech prevails in discussion because of logic, inference and obvious constitutional intent.

The point is that if free speech does not have the purpose of enabling the unity adequate to empower the peoples action of "alter or abolish", what does?

No one has ever answered that question reasonably. The people win! By default the purpose of free speech under law is PROVEN by default, everyday one of those deniers (agents) fails to produce a description of what creates unity if free speech does not have that purpose.

Free speech is in essence the second constitutional right or intent we can actively engage to defend the constitution. It is in support of the first right we can engage; the right to alter or abolish; because free speech can create an understanding, which is the backbone of unity.(*)

Two other aspects, basic rights empowering true representative government are secured in preparation for the full fledged Article V convention. Fair and just elections and fair campaigning. This addresses any election fraud, the potentials for electronic manipulation as well as the citizens united decision. For a time, campaign finance will likely leave the realm of "freedom of expression" because economic power has failed to show it can avoid placing greed over the principles of the republic. Someday, if the powerful learn, they will again be allowed to contribute to our betterment by using developed discretion parallel to constitutional intent for $ to politicians, if they learn constitutional intent and act to serve it properly, constitutionally. Exhibiting an INTENT to unify, as in "united states".

That convention will occur in social conditions far different than we now know. Because of the manifestation of free speech through mass media our adaptation to needed change will be underway. The stern restrictive dominance of fearfully obedient consumership will evaporate leaving openness to difficult truths with their logical implication of reasoned, logical, acceptable sacrifices.

In that, human creative nature will begin to find the intellectual and emotional rewards of living lives focused on continuity for future generations rather than condemned consumption for comfort and false security.(*) Being badly used and exploited to support conquest of empire is a miserable awareness no matter how much of it one carries.

All in all, there are basically three amendments to the constitution to be considered as preparatory amendment for the purpose of making the nation of people more constitutional so they may properly define constitutional intent. Until that capacity to define intent is determined, no further amendment of any kind should take place, unless numerous states already have applications in on similar, proposed amendments.

After the preparatory amendment and the end of the abridging of free speech, there will be an era of truth telling. This will rock our sheltered world, which is no less than a form of "designer reality". The purpose of free speech will be creating truly deep unity where nearly none had existed before.

Part of that will be some new web forums that enable informed opinion quickly in an environment where covert agents can get no traction. From that, and their polling features, will come developed awareness and capacity to define or articulate constitutional intent. Those places on the internet will bear the proof of American peoples capacity to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts to be witnessed by the people themselves.

But none of that describes the transition from partisan controlled politics inside of a media shell of misleading division to something with the dynamics needed to form state legislatures into leadership tools of and for the people. Or, State legislatures capable of unifying in control over the federal government via the amendments to the federal constitution 3/4 of them can make by ratification. This is not a re-write of the constitution. This is a very carefully considered set of adjustments that expose, remove an old infiltration while preventing any new ones.

The states created the federal government and by amendment can alter parts of it and abolish others. But still, the people must define constitutional intent to shape states to lead to a republic by and for the people.

Accordingly there is a needed transition period of great contention in 3/4 of the states. It is a time where a minority, who is exceedingly vocal and sure of itself, asserts itself with regard to the purpose of free speech with other constitutional intent, to the states legislations imposing upon them legal, constitutional tests lawfully over all state officials. For the corrupt it is a challenge, for the sincere American leader it is an invitation and honor.

There will be a parallel to the official test, which will be made upon media to either get publicity or expose the media entity as working against the constitution and the people.

The exposures will often occur in courts, or also expose courts. Very quickly, when these challenges become legal questions in courts, corrupt courts will refuse to hear the cases whereupon the challenge will move to another court which will honor constitutional intent with lawful recognition from true legal authority under the constitution.

In this way, media will be initially and lawfully be controlled because under the doctrine of purpose, which free speech must have for the constitution and republic under it to stand, government, and it's courts have a duty to enable American unity upon prime constitutional intent and preserve freedom of the press.

In this way states will be assembled one by one into representing the peoples burning need for unity in their task of defeating the infiltration and conversion of the federal government from something resembling less and less, one nation under God, into a nation respecting its natural, human purposes to survive and adapt perpetually.


And this is how it shall be, if we are to be free.


What follows is a step by step breakdown in summary, with the sequence of testing state officials for adequate constitutionality to lead states.

It begins with an enquiry by petition to state officials-Do you accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights? Here is how it goes step-by-step.

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmark...al-convention/

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-...n-applications

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

ON EDIT: There is a specific threat of a hijacked convention that ALL of the above counteracts. To see how that threat is assembling politically, who the actors and entities are, to see how the scam cold work IF we neglect this issue of defining constitutional intent. see this thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

 

When you say "freedom of speech" what exactly do you mean by that?

 

Obviously, your "freedom of speech" has been subverted by the government, otherwise we would be able to read your manifesto ...

... oh, wait. Never mind.

 

I chalk it up to cowardice, complacency, and of course division among the population as to what a revolution should bring about. Compare that to the unified power of central government and its loyalists..

 

I state more than simply "freedom of speech". I state it has a specific, ultimate purpose. By implication and inference the Declaration of Independence define that purpose is to alter or abolish, or under the constitution it is to assure all amendments have constitutional intent at an Article V convention.

Of course if has all the lessor uses and purposes we think and thought it does as well.

 

Loyalists subverted it before 1792 by seeing that the purpose of free speech was undefined.

This impaired your ability to understand it has a purpose.

 

A wall of text. I can't muddle through all of that, as tired as I am.
A "peaceful revolution". This has been discussed before. You can't "peacefully" force people to give up power. Force was required when we took it from the Brits, and force will be needed to take it from the "progressives". Unless you can muster an army that hurls truths from the backs of Unicorns, thus causing reason to prevail.

 

Certainly all of that and you've made an important point about the unified power of loyalists.

The cowardice may however be simple confusion. Confused people often appear cowardly. This is a draft revision of the First amendment that will remove such confusion.

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 to 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.

It also creates a path from one American who has the support of day 300 citizens (number to be determined by states) to get information vital to protection of unalienable rights on national broadcast television at prime time. This part does that, " first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people". Basically it defines forms of speech that tend to create unity that the hovernment not only must allow, but must empower.

 

I think we need a freedom of nudity clause in the constitution.

But it will just be ignored like everything else.

 

Understood, it is a lot, mostly because it addresses the environment this lawful and peaceful revolution will occur in. That part is not so relative to what the unity does, it defines the veracity of the approach in the social situation we currently have.

Keep in mind it is the lawfulness that creates the peacefulness of the revolution. American politicians may not follow laws, but they do know the meanings of them even though they may not want to say so.

This is a NEW way of looking at very old law that has been intentionally neglected BECAUSE it has do much power.

If you read the last part in italics and the first few paragraphs before it the basic lawful, peaceful part with strategy is briefly stated.

It's a matter of numbers and their relative resolve under law. If it is obvious that the numbers approaching state leadership have a NEW level of resolve based in constitutional intent that cannot be refuted.

There are two reasons it can't be refuted. ONE, even trying looks real bad, which is quite important in our current social environment. TWO, it looks very bad because the purpose of free speech is a verifiable fact derived logically from the framing documents.

That purpose is to enable the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

In order to deny that an official is going to have to say the framers did not intend for Americans to alter or abolish.

They will have to try and assert that the unity of the Americn people was not what the framers intended to create the needed force if numbers causing leadership if government destructive to rights to step down.

They will have to try and explain what serves the purpose oif enabling that unity if it IS NOT free speech.

This is a completely NEW and very powerful approach at testing the suitability of officials for state office. If they are unfit, in this constitutional emergency it is proper for Americans to ask for their impeachment in order to have states that WILL work for an Article V convention with all amendments having constitutional intent.

That is basically our FIRST constitutional right we can work together and use.

Look at it this way for perspective.

In web forums all posters give up trying to argue against these purposes of these rights. They give up because these purposes of these rights are actual law and they have nothing but the historical dysfunction of existing interpretations to rely on.

If they state they want change in any way, they must support an obviously lawful way to compel it, EVEN if it is unheard of, out-of-the-box, the logical interpretations of the framing documents DO have these very logical and simple things as meanings.

If it's too hard for posters in forums to try and oppose, imagine how difficult it will be to do from a seat in a state legislature.

 

The Constitution is a monster zit on the face of the planet earth that is always popped but keeps on reoccurring.

 

TL, it's already there. People simply have to learn to ignore the nudity as a form of expression.

 

It's only the infection/infiltration that makes it look that inflamed and disgusting.

With understanding we'll pop it once it for all and disinfect it right using natural law with the hearts and minds of the American people.

 

How many issues, complaints and abuses of the people could be solved by the people conducting the lawful and peaceful revolution they are entitled too?

 

10-20-30 years from now....after 1000s of times posting this....


you still won't imagine it not happening.

 

That is because I know the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the fact that many others can understand it.

Your position comes from the fact that you know media controls politics because it controls the information used in elections and voting.

If one likes the state of the nation and politics as they are they will try and state that the lawful and peaceful revolution will not or cannot happen.

If one does not like the state of the nation and its politics they will admit the intent of the Declaration of Independence is that Americans do have the right to alter or abolish and that Article V is the codified legal mechanism to do that with. They will admit that the framers logically intended for our unity to empower us to alter or abolish and that the only thing which can serve to enable that unity is the purpose of free speech.

People that do not like the state of the nation admit that the current government is not constitutional, they support the defense and enforcement of the constitution, they admit that the purpose of free speech is abridged, therefore they logically support a lawful and peaceful revolution with preparatory amendment to Article V that ends the abridging of the purpose of free speech ending the hijacked political scheme of partisanship.

So where do you stand? Do you like the state of the nation? Do you support the 1787 constitution and its intents from the Declaration of independence?

 

Selling out to the comfort, convenience and false security offered or imposed by the infiltration of government is not the way to protect future generations with reasonable permanence.

Media conditions people to only think about things which are of the infiltrations control.

Of course the last thing the infiltration wants Americans to think about is the potential lawful and peaceful revolution intended and secured by the framing documents.

In order to defend and enforce the constitution Americans need to break away from media and begin interacting with the intent expressed by the constitution.

Pretty simple really, but media DOES NOT want you to think of it. Those who are complacent or spiritually disabled kind only use the thoughts which medias promotes.

 

The government may have a few issues but I like a big government and find it should take on all the powers it needs to:

1. Secure my security from internal and external threats.

2. Provide for the needs of citizens providing education, food, housing, medical care and if someone can work and isn't employed at least a part-time job.

3. Do thing States decide not to do they don't want to run a State Militia then the Federal Government needs to provide for an Army now etc.

 

Our current infiltrated federal government is doing none of those things, but is compromising them in the long term, starting over 100 years ago, and now Americans are starting to think it is the peoples fault and we need help so can post like you have thinking your position can be supported.

In a very narrow short term view that gives up freedoms and rights, maybe, but otherwise that is just accepting America in a massively weakened state. Weakened spiritually, intellectually and philosophically, not to mention intellectually in our ability to take care of ourselves.

 

Hard to believe that with Cherokee ancestry you do not realize the Iroquois and Seneca were the main inspiration for the most functional parts of the framing documents.

If you do, why do to you give up on it?

Sure I understand that modern Americans are corrupted spiritually and even intellectually, but still, your ancestors would need to know you have the fortitude to do what is right for their descendants no matter what you think.

 

Do you really think the current governments, large or small, are doing very well with securing you from internal or external threats?

 

I used to take comfort in the fact that no matter how Tyrannical our government could become that our military would never take up war against American Citizens.

But when you review the Civil War, that seems to be a false hope, doesn't it.

I remember the disgust I felt when after working so hard to elect Republicans, when they were finally thrown out in 2006, they used their lame duck session to pass one more load of pork before they lost the majority.

Then in 2010 we again brought them to power and for a time they seem to fight and then after 2012, despite the amazing victory of 2014 they seem to have lost all stomach for it.

We need to continue to primary these guys, force a change in leadership, but more fundamentally we need to call an Article V convention to remind the Federal Government that they were formed by the States and are ultimately accountable to the States working collectively.

 

A very relevant point. Here is why it is relevant, and it is also true in a certain way. Actually a bit more complicated than that when it comes to the military and how they appear to be "taking up war against American Citizens".

English financiers wanted the civil war to divide the nation and regain covert control over their colony, but to use it in their traditional ways of crusade and conquest. There was also a retaliatory motive for the compromise they were forced into with the Magna Carta. Same basic group as the King and Barons forced to negotiate with the heretical Freeman that stopped all commerce on the roads of England.

If you examine the Lieber code, the basic "rules of engagement" for the union army, you may recognize of elements of "Agenda 21" within its intents. This is a modern adaptation of "take(ing) up war against American Citizens".

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp

It was Rothschild and others, Hospitaliers, Barons, Armorers, Bankers etc., that funded the union army. They essentially bought their control, BUT, they already controlled many members of congress and had influence over states too.

Slowly that intention of control has crept out of conquest and crusade over other peoples to control over Americans, with complete usurpation of the American constitution as a goal then finally we've seen that move into law enforcement as the military starts to arm them with the weapons of war developed to attack other peoples. The nearly complete unaccountability for shootings of unarmed citizens signal it is time for us to use our rights, or lose our rights.

Well stated with regard to the partisan scenario we've seen and endured.

I'm pretty well convinced that the partisanship structure exists to divide and conquer us and that there will not be enough impetus at any given time to overthrow the usurpers of the constitution if we try and run with politics as they are.

The lawful and peaceful revolution is LAW, not politics. It is a situation where Americans chose to unite to end a massive manipulation over democratic potential by the destruction of the PURPOSE of free speech in society. Media is a major tool in the exploitation of our numbers over generations.

Accordingly to escape the usurpations and imposed dysfunction enabling them, we must simply our demands in the beginning to empower the people in greater unity to assure that all amendments through Article V have constitutional intent.

Consider how crazy it is to enter into an Article V convention with proper preparation. This is the most important political event to ever take place in America since it inception. Lincoln said in an 1859 speech, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

What he has said, and the invest of it is stated by the congress and courts regularly, is that the people are the only entity which can define constitutional intent. Congress and the courts have stated innumerable times that they can only "interpret constitutional intent". Therein is our passage to freedom.

We must define constitutional intent and the veracity of our definition lies in our massive agreement. This is the reason I have selected the basis for this inquiry as I have and have worded it as I have. It creates an agreement upon our authority to be an authority and to have all power to enable our authority within natural law, the constitution and all reason.

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?

What this does is give us the power to DEMAND that America be prepared for an Article V convention. Three amendments effecting three important aspects of our republic and the democracy which, under very specific conditions, can control its principles. These are conditions I am working to invoke with the above inquiry.

 

Natural law does not exist so the entire op is flawed.

 

You deny biological instinct, phylogenetic DNA. You are wrong, as usual.