12 votes

Soldiers & Citizens Defense & Restoration of the Constitution Through Article V-A real plan.

Firstly, the current state of America is so unconstitutional that an Article V is too likely to be hijacked for many to accept. Therefore, this proposal assumes that citizens and soldiers know this fact and agree that the nation must be returned to a semblance of constitutionality before the convening of an Article V convention to propose amendments, if the constitution is to be preserved.

This is needed to prevent a "re-write" or the notion of "constitutional convention" or to assure that proper "adjustments" are made to our constitution.

There are three primary amendments which citizens and soldiers need to demand delegates agree to propose and amend from each state.

1) Amendment countering the abridging of free speech and the that of the press.
2) Campaign finance reform, (citizens united reversal +).
3) Securing voting systems and election reform.

The strategy is that the above are amendments which are proposed and ratified at the onset of a convention that have the potential, after an appropriate period of perhaps six months, to bring the nation to the brink of citizen constitutionality simply by informing citizens of events that media will never share. Amendment 1) needs to return the usenet to its former prominance. Dot com is unconstitutional and the constitutiona cannot be effectively defended or upheld there. Citizens will be started on the process of deeper unity based in constitutional principle and natural law.

The first obstacle is congress, and has been for 100 years. They have been violating the law, the constitution and their oaths since 1911. A man named Bill Walker sued all congressional members in 2006 due to these facts.

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

Currently there is a formal criminal complaint against all members of congress for this behavior.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-re...

An important formal step, but chances are the Attorney general will probably do nothing. And that, I and others would propose, is because we have suffered a covert infiltration of our government which is now quite complete, even at the state levels, which is why congress acted unconstitutionally for 100 years, evading their duty with Article V to see the infiltration completed. Accordingly, the maximum democratic involvement is required to overcome the embedding of infiltrations into states legislations in order for Abraham Lincolns words to be manifested.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln, April 15, 1865

Democracy depends on opinion, opinion depends information, information comes from media, media is infiltrated, . . . democracy needs a change of conditions.

Soldiers are citizens and both of those are logically the only people of this nation that WILL act to defend and restore the Constitution. It is very likely that this specific proposal for constitutional defense is too functional and legal for any current politician to support until citizens rally behind it. There are some constitutional politicians, but considerable support for an Article V convention needs to be created before they will break ranks from the status quo political environment.

In that case, it is up to soldiers and citizens to begin that support IF the constitution is to be defended and prevail.

First the soldiers direct legal inquiry into the "lawful military authority", a status which is required for orders to be binding. This is direct legal defense of the constitution by soldiers which has ultimate constitutionality, something logically intrinsic to defense of the constitution from a domestic enemy. Only a constitutional civil government can bestow the status of "lawful military authority" upon our military. When citizens present enough evidence of unconstitutional civil government to soldiers, to substantiate the presence of espionage and sedition explaining usurpation's of the constitution, soldiers who have pledged their lives to the constitution have the right, and even the duty to break rank and make inquiry upwards into the chain of command over them.

A "lawful military authority" will immediately provide a reasonable review with strict constitutional mandates controlling the review, of the soldiers evidence. IF the soldiers evidence is reasonable and verified showing usurpation's, the chain of command MUST be prepared to use its legal system, wherein all members of that system have taken the same oath as the soldier, to identify and defend the constitution from the domestic enemy who has conducted or is conducting usurpation's of the constitution. The following link is a 3 page .pdf download of this draft of a legal pleading titled the "Soldiers Inquiry".

http://www.sendspace.com/file/i8xx16

When the chain of command over the soldier fails to defend the constitution by providing authority to the soldier to make inquiry, citizens must file civil lawsuits; under United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115 § 2382, "Misprision of treason" or "concealing treason"; against those opposing the soldier seeking an order of inquiry. Soldiers using this legal method are acting to expose treason in pursuit of their oath to defend the constitution and any who oppose are working to conceal it. Very simple.

In the absence of free speech which can have the intended and needed meaning, citizens need a special tool of technology to make the internet serve constitutional defense. Currently it is very well infiltrated and Obama advisor Cass Sunstein recommended "cognitive infiltration" of activists group on the web as well as the ground in 2008. There are many articles written on this. The word "cointelpro" was invented inthe 197-0's to describe known infiltrations then. Any who would like to see the links, ask. Not the topic here so I'm not posting them even though they are activities which threaten the constitution.

The following 3 page ,pdf download describes a internet forum software that does not yet exist, but can quite easily. All that is required is a dedicated software programmer who has considerable skill and knowledge. If any such read this and are willing to do this in defense of the constitution, count on my assistance in conceptual development of algorithms etc., that I might do. elanuslecurus@lycos.net .

http://www.sendspace.com/file/i8xx16http://www.sendspace.com...

The software puts the reasonable, lawful, citizens agreements at the most visible point for all citizens so they may join and give birth to informed opinion capable of true democracy.

Enough description of these methods and tools for constitutional defense. Do you really believe that any politician will do what needs to be done from this current sociopolitical environment? Time for action, then constitutionalists like Ron Paul can be free to do what needs to be done without suffering the unconstitutional criticism of the infiltrators that surround them. Readers need to realize this is it. Your last real opportunity to defend your constitution and your future well being, freedom and rights.

I hereby certify that all downloadable documents of this post are solely of my creation and given freely for defense of the United States Constitution,

April 23, 2012, Christopher A. Brown

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why bother though. Just get

Why bother though. Just get your own state together and secede. Make sure it is so orderly that civil chaos is negligible, close out the foreign media and foreign people (from other states) to prevent provocateurs and lunatic mobs. (You gotta trust in god that your state doesn't turn fascist or communist at this point, that they will open the border again.) I have strong doubts that the military would be willing to use real force against americans from any state, and if your legal theory is correct within the military, then to do believe the constitution does not prevent secession, notwithstanding the civil war theories.

If I were a state, I would run a drawn out process that released counties from the Feds one by one. A much less daunting situation to handle.

23

If the abuses continue and we are deprived of Article V,

further,then a few states may consider that. And, your process would probably be the most successful method.

However, the intent of the federal government to dispose of the constitution must be made visible. The most complete test is when states demand Article V and do so with the fact of 100 years of deprival of our first right.

The right to "alter or abolish", or protect ourselves from the constant corruptions directed at the centers of power driven by greed was stolen from our last century.

The deprival has empowered the greed to dynamically impoverish us, to our great jeopardy.

Since no state is voicing secession under conditions, they are either all taken over or waiting for us to figure out what is happening and make them do what is needed.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Things Are Working (barely) Like They Are

Meaning only certain areas of the way government that is working needs to be changed by us, the people, the citizens. That may effect a lot of government ultimately, but over time the impacts are not so radical.

I'm not suggesting that the military of any state would use force against US citizens in these conditions. I'm suggesting that the military consider using their legal system to question domestic enemies in civil government and see them prove they are constitutional.

Abraham Lincolns words will work in military courts too.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

Soldiers with citizens aware of treason against the constituton have the absolute and legal right in defense of the constitution to do so peacefully in court evaluating the constitutionality of military and civilian officials.

Those evaluations logically apply just as they do after the fact and punishment, but to the task of confirming the military is a fully lawful military authority bestowed by the civil government.

When the military acts to defend the constitution it is lawful in fact. To do so against a domestic enemy it must be peaceful and use law. When it is recognized in that capacity, for any act, officially by the civil government known to be constitutional, by the masters f the constitutions intent, the people, it is bestowed with the social honor of defending the lives and principles of the people of the land.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

If you're talking about using

If you're talking about using the military law, then you are talking about using force. If you are talking about using force, then all bets are off. The laws of man and nature are the only ones that apply. You can use the constitution to cover a wound, that's about it. While the current government has very little actual legitimacy, a military government would have less. If they had to use force to rework the legal system, even under the constitution you're looking at either an egypt situation or a Union v Confederate situation, only possibly with more than two warring sides. You'll never get the herd on to one of those internet boards, and it would be too chaotic to have reasonability. Trolling wouldn't be able to describe the intellectual carnage.

But hey, if the military does attempt a legal coup, I'd support that. But the military is likely not homogenous. General A would likely not agree with General B, troops A might side with General A, and troops B would side with General B. If the disagreement is severe, there could be unrest even within the confines of the military establishment. Lockheed will likely support the current government. Things like that put our side at a considerable disadvantage.

If the disagreements within the military are not severe, ok then. Supposing they are benevolent, how do you get the "right" new guys in there? They have no constitutional power to alter the law. That is granted to congress, which has constitutional procedure for election. Who will the new guys be? Do you abolish TV...permanently? If not, who gets to be there? With so many players to be on the airwaves, how do you possible separate the honest from the conspirators, from the selfish?

I think what you propose would not only be a mess on the domestic side, you also just never know when the Russians/Chinese/Iranians/Israelis/Mexicans what have you jump in with force while we are in a vulnerable period. Surely the markets would tumble in a period like this, to say the least of the problems, and the foreign debt holders would be pissed, not to mention the plunging exports and drain on global GDP.

Our situation is a hand grenade in a crowded locked theater. If you pull the establishment, you are pulling the pin. If you don't, you're locked in watching the same movie over and over again.

23

Military law is control and discipline of force

And, it exists primarily for defense of the constitution or it is unconstitutional.

amartin315 wrote:
If you're talking about using the military law, then you are talking about using force.

No. I write about sing law in control of force as defense of the constitution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

And if the supreme court

And if the supreme court denies it?

23

JBS "Beware Article V"

The fear that if an Article 5 convention was convened, that it would go beyond it's mandate and run amok, is a justified concern. We could end up wih a completely new document that is 100% pure commie socialist dumper licking crap.

The evidence to support this claim can be found in the demise of the Articles of Confederation. A constitutional convention was convened only to add a commerce clause to the existing Articles of Confederation. The delegates to that convention went beyond their mandate and created an entirely new document.

Therefore, a legal precedence has been set, that delegates elected to an Article 5 convention, or Con Con, are not required to conduct business only within the narrowly defined parameters laid forth by the States legislatures.

In closing, I found the ideas regarding use of the military, including their legal system, very intriguing! I would like to read more about how troops can help point out the corruption using the UCMJ. I also like the reference to "misprison of treason". One thing that was missed in the beginning, as far as reasons to hold an Artical 5 convention, is a Balanced Budget Amendment. There is one inescapable fact though, and that is that something must be done, and soon! I believe a new convention should be convened as a last resort before resorting to force of arms. I don't believe that Article V is necessarily the method with which we should have a new convention. Doing so within that framework gives the government too much power over the people. I believe a new convention should be convened outside the influence and reach of the federal government, for the purpose of drafting a new declaration, by the people themselves! Such an effort would require the coordinated defense by the Constitutional Militias of the several states. Robert Schultz tried a convention, but it never really gained traction by the people. Even if it did though, the people these days are too brainwashed. Again we run the risk of having it become corrupted with commie socialist influences :/

Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4

Beware Constitutional Convention! (part 1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD7Kp_M8Xhs

Beware of Article V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz2RCxHZHDc

Thank you Christopher A. Brown. Good read. I applaud you for proposing a solution, and I look forward to your response.

How constitutional is fear of the constitution?

Kelldor wrote:
"The fear that if an Article 5 convention was convened, that it would go beyond it's mandate and run amok, is a justified concern."

Maybe, if you cannot read.

"-shall be valid to all intents and purposes-"

And your post shows you haven't been because most of what I'm writing about is preparation to absolutely assure that an Article V will only manifest amendments pursuant to its mandate.

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,

Kelldor wrote:
"We could end up wih a completely new document that is 100% pure commie socialist dumper licking crap."

Wow, a whole slew of cognitive distortions, just like cass sunstein recomended "cognitive infiltration of US citizen activist groups".
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

For your reference here is list cognitive distortions and you see for yourself how many you've used.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories. If things are less than perfect self is viewed as failure.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous failure.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established
7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation
9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.
12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

"We could end up wih a completely new document that is 100% pure commie socialist dumper licking crap."(12, 4, 1, 2, 10, 4, 10)

You score very high Kelldor.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Thanks for the reply! I enjoyed it.

Hi Chris. No need to get all hung up on one colorful sentence. I'm just being honest about how I think an Article V convention would go today. I believe it is possible we could end up with something worse than what we already have. The framers were only authorized to amend the existing Articles of Confederation to add a Commerce Clause, but instead scrapped the Articles and wrote the Constitution. Therefore I am merely pointing out that the legal precedence has been set by the framers for delegates to the convention to go beyond their mandate.

This is the argument the other side would use to go beyond their mandate. Next consider the mindset of the majority of Americans who have been indoctrinated in the public education system. It's been goin on for several generations now. Read the Dodd Report to the Resse Committee on Foundations, on page 6. Their "revolution" was successful. Just look around you. Many Americans now think we should end capialism, and go to socialism. Thank Michael Moore, and 0bama for making it popular. I work with people who think this way. They truly believe we should "get rid of the Constitution, because it was written by old racist white guys." The people I see every day are more concerned with gay marriage than restoring Constitutional government. They do not consider that their soultion could be the repeal of existing legislation. It's always, "we need a new federal law."

I'm simply being honest about what I see around me as far as the mindeset of people go. This tends to lend to a sort of negativity towards individuals who subscribe to the above mentioned philosophies in my colorful cognitive distortion above, hence the blunt assessment.

So, we have a precedence set by the framers, and a mindless populace, with a propensity to engage in interventionism in all things. This doesn't exactly exude confidence in the outcome.

Thanks again for the reply! Kinda nice learning about Cognitive Distortions. I make no apology for my colorful litany, for to do so would be caving to political correctness, but please know that I am of the opinion that we would end up with a document influenced by the UN Charter, UNESCO Charter, the Declaration of Interdependence, the Communist Manifesto, etc., and I provided grounds to support my claim. To be fair, Rand Paul has differed with his father and shared your view on the need for a convention, but for a Balanaced Budget Amendment, not something you included. If you are going to have a Artical V convention, ya can't leave that one out!

Kel

P.S. It kinda just rolls off the tounge though, I mean it totally lacks any tact whatsoever, but the reader instantly gets it. I always spout something like that off once in a while. It wasn't an attack on you or anything.

Cognitive distortions cannot be used in critical thinking.

That is the kind of thinking I'm trying to inspire.

You've got what it takes to change your mind, you've just not been reading and realizing that you've been acting in fear of using your constitution before you fully understand it. Successful boiling of frogs benefits from that and keeping them comfortable until its too late.

Kelldor wrote:
Committee on Foundations, on page 6. Their "revolution" was successful. Just look around you. Many Americans now think we should end capialism, and go to socialism. Thank Michael Moore, and 0bama for making it popular.

If you bring that up it's good cause to think you are not an infiltrator with bot because what started in 1912 with the "making uniform" the American educational system by global foundations definitely leads to where you describe about fascination with sensational social issues and an utter cognitive failure to consider things like the Magna Carta that were the beginning of hard won freedom that inspired the world. There are something like 45 social contracts globally that emulate the Great Charter.
Most Americans do not realize it was a peace treaty. They don't realize there was a war. They don't know the losers signed and the victors were left out history for the most part. Except for "Robin Hood" Robert Hod as symbol to coincide with oral histories and diminish the fact that the people won.
America has the "Forest Service" so the king and crew have been thinking ahead.

Kelldor wrote:
Therefore I am merely pointing out that the legal precedence has been set by the framers for delegates to the convention to go beyond their mandate.

THEIR MANDATE:
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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

The most important part is this part-

"-Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,-"

Combine that with Lincoln's words,

"The people of the United States
are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts,
not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

September 17, 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH

REALIZE that with free speech, we will be empowered to define what constitutional intent IS. Then we can be certain of the intent of what WE ARE DOING. Not "them".

When 3/4 of the states are ratifying, congress, the courts, the senate and the president are superseded..

When 3/4 of the states convene conventions WITHOUT congress calling a convention, and the legislations of 3/4 start ratifying, it IS an Article V convention.

REALIZE I wrote the "Soldiers Inquiry" because I know that your description of Americans decision making capacity is very impaired, you are correct, so they are not going to be able to compel their states. They have no unity and the .orgs, movements etc. are not helping. Even those that claim to be working for amendment like movetoamend.org are clueless as to the facts about the needed authority for making changes and meeting the demands of the masses. The "petitions for redress of grievance" are pitiful and those applying that method most admit it.

REALIZE that I created the thread linked below to define preparatory amendments so that the soldier can be assured that the people will be able to define "constitutional intent" at the Article V the "lawful military authority" compels. And the only "lawful military authority" I will approve of is one that defends the constitution.

I'm not alone in that, but, because of the "dumbing down" and a major psyops for about 40 years, imposed through media and cointelpro upon Americans, soldiers, citizens are AFRAID of the military command. Some in command think that's okay probably.

Accordingly Americans have to understand this lawful and peaceful method of revolution. That means you.

You have good perceptions of where people are at, BUT THAT IS NOT SOLUTION.

You are not reading, understanding and getting over your fears THEN defending you constitution with what IS the solution.

Kelldor wrote:
"I'm simply being honest about what I see around me as far as the mindeset of people go".

Consider the legal options and weave that perceived mindset into information called the TRUTH which is something each democratically elected delegate must agree to work towards by proposing and ratifying the preparatory amendments needed for the people to define and execute constitutional intent.

I published this thread to inform Americans of this strategy to become a constitutional people.

http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By...

Kelldor wrote:
but for a Balanaced Budget Amendment, not something you included. If you are going to have a Article V convention, ya can't leave that one out!

For now, let us simply get an Article V. The preparatory amendments are beyond criticism by anyone that has a clue. They only recover a modicum of constitutionality related to the people ability to unify and conduct voting and elections. Later, AFTER we recover free speech THEN we can amend intelligently with full constitutional intent.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I would strongly advise

I would strongly advise against a Constitutional Convention, without knowing in very explicit detail all who would be involved. The last time we had a convention, people met to address the limitations of The Articles of Confederation and we almost ended up with the Virginia Plan. A Constitutional Convention is what a lot of people want, if one is convened they could add all kinds of crazy stuff to the Constitution; and we could end up with a Constitution that now limits people's ability to do anything. This should not be undertaken carelessly; for it may not end up they way you would have planned.

A lot of things almost happened.

The states will be involved, 3/4 of them.

"Crazy" is a generalization.

1) of this plan will allow the people to define what is "crazy" and create opinion with the "intent" to avoid amending in any such way.

READ:

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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

NOTE:
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed

When 3/4 of the states are ratifying, they override congress, the senate and the pres.

    And should.

1)Of this plan will have an immense impact on all opinions.

1)Of this plan actually could justify a convention all on its own with the level of misleading that is occurring on the internet.

READ:
The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. Wiki is guilty of concealing treason, or the methods to expose it. Not the first time.

Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification: ratification by the state legislatures, or instead ratification by state conventions called for that purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment...

The infiltrators of the US government were sure to create a great deal of misinformation in order to disable the populations from taking effective action under the social contract. Please, avoid that. Remember Lincoln's words.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

We need to have a deep discussion, all 200 million of us. We need mass media, all commercial network television paying its dues, its "debt to society" for its criminal, treason against us by enabling our restoration of the U.S. Constitution as people of several states. We need the usenet back NOW! This dot com garbage is a serious usurpation.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The numbers aren't there.

You must not be thinking clearly. 3/4 of the States would be 38; where are you getting 38 Liberty minded States from, and why haven't they voted for Dr. Paul in this election.

If you took every Liberty minded State Legislature out of all 50 States, you wouldn't have enough to fill the Legislating body of Rhode Island. If you think that the States, which are all controlled by Socialists, would nominate Liberty minded people to represent the State in a Constitutional Convention, then you are smoking something which is currently illegal.

If the States wanted to keep power then they would have used Nullification; the fact of the matter is, the States are run by those who are willingly ceding power to the federal government; they would never do anything which opposed the federal government power grab.

There are currently more Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Neocon, Liberal, Conservative people inhabiting the 50 States then Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Anarcho-capitalists; so any Constitutional Convention would surely be run by those who oppose Liberty rather then by those who support Liberty. Therefore, we would end-up less free after a Constitutional Convention then we would be if we didn't have one. Also, if our elected officials don't follow the Constitution as it is currently written, what makes you think they would follow it, even if, we somehow made it better?

Freedom of Speech Needs To Make Understanding

The Philosopher wrote:
"You must not be thinking clearly. 3/4 of the States would be 38; where are you getting 38 Liberty minded States from"

Obviously, without freedom of speech they cannot unify perceptions, but if they knew they could if they had it, they would be there to get it then do it just as they, we need it done.

The Philosopher wrote:
"If you took every Liberty minded State Legislature out of all 50 States, you wouldn't have enough to fill the Legislating body of Rhode Island. If you think that the States, which are all controlled by Socialists, would nominate Liberty minded people to represent the State in a Constitutional Convention, then you are smoking something which is currently illegal."

Don't need to smoke anything to show that my original post is confirmed by what you say. Congress has deprived Americans of their first constitutional right, Article V for 100 years in order to embed unconstitutional infiltrators within state legislations.
To compensate delegates would be elected at general or special elections with convention funded media coverage, toll free lines, web radio and web forums.

The Philosopher wrote:
"If the States wanted to keep power then they would have used Nullification; the fact of the matter is, the States are run by those who are willingly ceding power to the federal government; they would never do anything which opposed the federal government power grab."

Correct the infiltrated state legislations will not oppose the current unconstitutional fed, but nullification was given up for Article V when the states peoples supported the compact of the constitution. Just like "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence was codified to Article V.

The Philosopher wrote:
"There are currently more Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Neocon, Liberal, Conservative people inhabiting the 50 States then Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Anarcho-capitalists; so any Constitutional Convention would surely be run by those who oppose Liberty rather then by those who support Liberty. Therefore, we would end-up less free after a Constitutional Convention then we would be if we didn't have one. Also, if our elected officials don't follow the Constitution as it is currently written, what makes you think they would follow it, even if, we somehow made it better?"

Sure, if we could get a convention, but we can't and why are you so ready to give up your first constitutional right so easy?

Sure, in the confusion there is enough chaos to make it appear like the distraction parties and other dissenters are all that exists. But it's not true. There tens of millions of real red white and blue Americans that can understand natural law and unify behind it. All that is required is that Americans like yourself that mostly understand the situation also realize that using true natural law, we can inspire others and move society into a culture of change.

The process of getting a convention, then the 3 preparatory amendments with a period of time for Americans to become informed, will end with the infiltration fleeing public offices in many cases.

The courts are corrupted so enforcement of the constitution through civil actions has been impossible. After the infiltration is evidence, appropriate amendment will change the courts and enforcement by those means will re-establish.

The Philosopher wrote:
"and why haven't they voted for Dr. Paul in this election."

Probably because he does not talk about ending the abridgment of free speech, using natural law to inspire Americans. There is an ancient doctrine of natural law relating to the social, psychological aspects of free speech which has the original name of, "The Greater Meaning of Free Speech", fully 70% more of the same natural law as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but Ron Paul was not interested and would not even read certified mail to him from this American seeking to give him the tool to restore constitutional government. He sent it to my "dead end" congress person who never responds to anything.

Here is a scan of the letter from Congressman Ron Pauls Victoria office.
http://i51.tinypic.com/eipj0l.jpg

Maybe you can get Ron Paul to be accountable for addressing the ancient and profound doctrine presented to him. Tell him to call up Lois Capps and send the letter back so he can read it;) tell him to tell her his staff didn't notice it was about ending the abridging of free speech. I just talked to her for the first time last Saturday, Earth Day, and she has no idea of Ron Pauls forwarding of my letter.

Let me know how it goes.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that you've agreed with all the points that I had made as to why a Constitutional Convention would be a bad idea, and yet you still think that the outcome of a Constitutional Convention is a good idea; something doesn't fit.

You've agreed that the States are run by socialists, which like to expand State government while simultaneously giving power to the federal government.

You've agreed that the vast majority of individuals in the United States, are of some form of Socialist; desiring to use 'Big Government.'

You've agreed that if a Constitutional Convention were to be held that those who oppose Liberty would out number those who support Liberty.

So, with those three of my points being accepted, why is a Constitutional Convention a good idea?

I also wouldn't look to the military for help if I were you; the vast majority believe that the Oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is meant for them to protect the government -two completely different things entirely.

Also, you've never made a comment as to how you think that we would be able to force the government to follow an amended Constitution when they refuse to follow the one that they already have as law.

A Constitutional Convention would strip more liberties then we would ever be able to add or have enforced by amending the Cosntitution.

The time for the people to implement a Constitutional Convention is long since passed, for far to many people don't even desire liberty anymore, and most who would be selected to go to a Constitutional Convention would be more inclined to limit liberty -including speech- then to expand liberty.

Implications of unabridged free speech

Philosopher, I'd like to see some accountability to the implications of preparatory amendment as a requisite to an Article V to compensate for the 100 year deprival. Include in that the fact that the compensation would have FIRST a period of real free speech empowered for constitutional defense, THEN democracy is empowered with campaign finance reform and secured voting machines.

Please explain why you want people to give up their first constitutional right when clearly, it can be safely used to great benefit in the restoration of the constitution.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Bring substance please!

The Philosopher wrote:
"Also, you've never made a comment as to how you think that we would be able to force the government to follow an amended Constitution when they refuse to follow the one that they already have as law."

Clearly, IF we have an Article V, we have succeeded at enforcing the constitution. Because Article V is the evolution of "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence, at the Article V the unconstitutional government will be replaced by a constitutional government.

Our soldiers are either going to defend the constitution, or follow orders that direct them to ignore that it is threatened.

The Philosopher wrote:
"A Constitutional Convention would strip more liberties then we would ever be able to add or have enforced by amending the Cosntitution."

You've not yet addressed what ending the abridgment of free speech as preparation for a convention does. I assert that through free speech the citizens find the unity needed to control the convention and the reverse of what you suggest happens.

The Philosopher wrote:
"The time for the people to implement a Constitutional Convention is long since passed, for far to many people don't even desire liberty anymore, and most who would be selected to go to a Constitutional Convention would be more inclined to limit liberty -including speech- then to expand liberty."

The infiltrated federal government would want people to think that "The time for the people to implement a Constitutional Convention is long since passed".

I suggest you provide some proof that people "to many people don't even desire liberty anymore".

I would then assert that anything you produce is a product of the usurpation of free speech, then a result of 30 years of psychological warfare against human beings that are also Americans. I would assert that Americans do not really know what liberty is because media corporations have supplanted the natural and deeply fulfilling uses of liberty with sensational and exploitive programming that creates corporate profits.

And that IF the people who actually express what you produce are questioned by an American who does understand the constitution and knows what liberty is for, that they would change their expression from what you produce to one willing to take responsibility for their independence and liberty.

In light of what I've written above, substantiate this statement please.

"far to many people don't even desire liberty anymore,"

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The Philosopher wrote: "I

The Philosopher wrote:
"I find it interesting that you've agreed with all the points that I had made as to why a Constitutional Convention would be a bad idea, and yet you still think that the outcome of a Constitutional Convention is a good idea; something doesn't fit."

You are not using the reasonable assumption of natural law working with human psychology and you are also leaving out vital factors, so the logic escapes you.

One vital factor is that the convention happens because the soldiers have taken an oath to defend the constitution. You say "military" I say soldiers. Citizens are not going to get one any other way. The infiltration knows an Article V could be an event that goes against them despite the fact they have the power of media and lots of illicit control

Another vital factor is the fact that the citizens vote in states for delegates and the delegates must agree to propose amendments and ratify amendments that end the abridging of free speech.

In your reply you've completely left out the natural law aspect of free speech which is a philosophical basis for creating unity.

Within the convention I propose, the abridgement of free speech is ended before a general convention. The nation is made constitutional before that so that it will have full constitutional intent.

Please consider your fears in light of these aspects in your next reply.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

A lot of things almost happened.

The states will be involved, 3/4 of them.

"Crazy" is a generalization.

1) of this plan will allow the people to define what is "crazy" and create opinion with the "intent" to avoid amending in any such way.

READ:

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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

NOTE:
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed

When 3/4 of the states are ratifying, they override congress, the senate and the pres.

    And should.

1)Of this plan will have an immense impact on all opinions.

1)Of this plan actually could justify a convention all on its own with the level of misleading that is occurring on the internet.

READ:
The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph. Wiki is guilty of concealing treason, or the methods to expose it. Not the first time.

Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification: ratification by the state legislatures, or instead ratification by state conventions called for that purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment...

The infiltrators of the US government were sure to create a great deal of misinformation in order to disable the populations from taking effective action under the social contract. Please, avoid that. Remember Lincoln's words.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

We need to have a deep discussion, all 200 million of us. We need mass media, all commercial network television paying its dues, its "debt to society" for its criminal, treason against us by enabling our restoration of the U.S. Constitution as people of several states. We need the usenet back NOW! This dot com garbage is a serious usurpation.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Bradley Manning

...just went about it the wrong way?
Or have his superiors gone astray?
Furthermore Lincoln squashed more civil liberties
in order to centralize power, than any could have
imagined...

It's been said that there were only two(2)wars fought
that had any legitimacy.
The Revolutionary War...
...and the "War Between the States" (Civil War).
And the Confederacy was fighting for us all.
Your premise was initiated back then.....

We have been hoodwinked, Liberty was sleeping.
here's a link:
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Seces...

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Lincoln Was Set Up-The Lieber Code Was Forced Upon Him

Manning may have been set up and used. Used first for distraction of the masses, then to justify new regulations. And probably did do what he did in a less than perfect manner.

There was also Col. Terence Lakin court martialed and more recently Sgt. Gary Stein, discharged, who refused to obey orders. Not the way to defend the constitution, it does however bring attention to the issue and I honor the spirit of their efforts.

But Lincoln was set up. British arms manufacturers and finance brought in by those with ancient alliance to the losers of the "Lost War", who signed the Magna Carta centuries before found another opportunity to take back their colony lost with the revolutionary war, imposed the Lieber Code upon Lincoln.

ecclesia.org/forum/library/Lieber_Code.pdf

I feel we are seeing a revival of it in the behaviors of some law enforcement in these days. Lincoln knew that the military industrial complex had embedded itself.


President Abraham Lincoln, In the last year of the war, on November 21, 1864, in a letter to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. “As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

There is a good chance that an ancient agenda, far less in our interests than slave holding, was actually fueling the war and slavery was a logical and common issue the church could focus on in communities. So yes, you are correct in perhaps more ways than that. The Confederacy was perhaps the more constitutionally based despite the apparent hipocrisy of slavery. Great link by BTW:)

The secession issue is well documented and shows that the North could have been hidden motives for violating the compact of the constitution.


The federal government was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Southerners on the battle field, so there can be no doubt it would have relished humiliating Jefferson Davis in a courtroom. It is a virtual certainty that if the North's case had been strong they would have taken it to trial and vindicated their war against the hated South once and for all. That the Federal government did not go to court against the Confederate president after keeping him in jail for two years charged with treason, is strong evidence that there was indeed a legal right of secession and the South had exercised it properly. There were no other treason trials against former Confederates because any one trial would likely prove the legal right of secession, and imminently practical Northerners were not about to lose in a court of law what they had won on the battlefield.

As a side note of hidden societal issues:
Unexplained in all this, is why male slaves were freed and given the vote before any woman could vote. Is that really explained by "All men are created equal?" with the Declaration of Independence? As you can see there are some very fundamental things amiss in our past.

With the use os the Soldiers Inquiry I also feel that some of the PTSD and other mental issues will be resolved quicker when a number of intelligent and open minded, constitutionalist active service members realize how appropriate applying for an order to inquire into the constitutionality of civil government is. Some our soldiers really love the constitution. They don't even know how much and are caught in a wringer of social fears and unconstitutional wars.

Afraid of the chain of command, who, would never question the constitutionality of the civil government while obviously being subjected to it and demanding that all others submit. Meanwhile the citizens stand around like sheep watching the constitution be shredded and senseless religious wars used to absorb the nations economy.

Most importantly is that citizens understand the preparatory amendment for Article V, or how it brings forth the constitutional intent, natural law aspects, so they can inspire soldiers who learn of this and show that the soldiers will not have to face their command alone to actually defend the constitution from its most serious enemy. One deeply infiltrated into the US government.

Of those preparations, ending the abridgment of free speech is the most important to understand. Americans must be empowered to readily share vital information for survival and defense of the constitution.

Currently the public cannot share what is needed.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

You State

That the "Lieber Code" was "forced" upon him.
In Consideration that it was a documentation of Martial Law
and policies of Lincoln's Administration, I doubt that "opinion".

Lincoln was the Commander-in-Chief, known to hire...
..AND FIRE those Military Commanders that did not "measure up"
to his expectations.
He was in control.

But to further state that he was "set-up" using the example of "British Arms Manufacturers" is not a valid argument.
The Union was bankrupt...large monies were owed to bankers,
most likely the Bank of London,spelled Rothschild,and a quite simple solution was arrived at by suggestion of one of his generals.
The Solution quite simply was this:
"GREENBACKS"...monies printed by the US Govt, not the FED.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Oh yes, another important fact.
You state that:" an ancient agenda, far less in our interests than slave holding, was actually fueling the war ...."

It is a well-known fact that:
(a)The Civil War was not a war to"free the slaves"
(b)It was fought over economics, and unfair tarriffs.
(c) although you use the word "hipocracy" to describe the
Confederates, it was more apt towards the Union which;
(i)inducted Irish immigrants into the military by force.
(a form of slavery)
(ii)Pushed for the punishment of those states that dared to
exercise their Constitutional Right to secede, when in reality
New York threatened to secede only years before.

This is what led to the unfair burden of tariffs imposed upon the
Southern states, at the behest of the New York bankers.
N.Y. threatened secession and was "coddled" due to financial
influence, whereas the South was penalized.
But back to your main point:
"Ending the Abridgement of Free Speech".
This, among other violations must be accomplished by IMPEACHMENT,
and, if necessary, an indictment for War Crimes.
we must take back our Govt now...by political process before it's too late.
A military "Coup de t'eat" would only lead to anarchy which would
empower the oligarchs to further their designs.
And that, in my opinion, would be the only result of your
"plan"...as well-meant it may/or may not be.
I rest my case.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Lincoln was used to get the public support for war.

Danton wrote:
"That the "Lieber Code" was "forced" upon him.
In Consideration that it was a documentation of Martial Law
and policies of Lincoln's Administration, I doubt that "opinion".

Lincoln was the Commander-in-Chief, known to hire...
..AND FIRE those Military Commanders that did not "measure up"
to his expectations.
He was in control."

Is that why he was assasinated?
Naivete won't work here. "Some" military commanders, but not "any" can be removed from position. The others are too well connected and perhaps put the pres in office by public support.

Danton wrote:
"But to further state that he was "set-up" using the example of "British Arms Manufacturers" is not a valid argument.
The Union was bankrupt...large monies were owed to bankers,
most likely the Bank of London,spelled Rothschild,and a quite simple solution was arrived at by suggestion of one of his generals.
The Solution quite simply was this:
"GREENBACKS"...monies printed by the US Govt, not the FED.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?"

Yes, it sounds again if you are confirming what I assert. A general suggested that Rothschild fund the transport of arms manufacturing and operators as well as training through the Bank of London to companies that contracted with the Union. You've added some detail, thank you.

Danton wrote:
Oh yes, another important fact.
"You state that:" an ancient agenda, far less in our interests than slave holding, was actually fueling the war ...."

It is a well-known fact that:
(a)The Civil War was not a war to"free the slaves"
(b)It was fought over economics, and unfair tarriffs.
(c) although you use the word "hypocrisy" to describe the
Confederates, it was more apt towards the Union which;
(i)inducted Irish immigrants into the military by force.
(a form of slavery)
(ii)Pushed for the punishment of those states that dared to
exercise their Constitutional Right to secede, when in reality
New York threatened to secede only years before."

I can accept that, but it does not address "ancient agenda" as in "Magna Carta" which rights of the constitution are based in.

Let me respond to the weaknesses of your list.

(a)"Free the slaves" was emotional reasoning used through religion to motivate populations to a cause.
(b)Yes, but do those issues justify all out war which is unconstitutional as you and your links point out?
(c)Is hypocrisy worse than treason against the constitution? See (b)(i)(ii)

Danton wrote:
"This is what led to the unfair burden of tariffs imposed upon the
Southern states, at the behest of the New York bankers.
N.Y. threatened secession and was "coddled" due to financial
influence, whereas the South was penalized."

Agreed, but this also served the ancient agenda. Two reasons to act in your interest, against the law of the land is always a better environment for corruption.

Danton wrote:
But back to your main point:
"Ending the Abridgment of Free Speech".

Consider impeachments will never happen without public involvement which is dependent on information. As long as corporate media is a filter for reality, there will be no impeachments.

Danton wrote:
"This, among other violations must be accomplished by IMPEACHMENT,
and, if necessary, an indictment for War Crimes.
we must take back our Govt now...by political process before it's too late."

As long as corporate media is a filter for reality, there will be no constitutional political process.

Danton wrote:
"A military "Coup de t'eat" would only lead to anarchy which would
empower the oligarchs to further their designs."

Wrong. You likely did not read the "Soldiers Inquiry". It is ultimately directed at the soldiers acting to compel an Article V convention and names the abridgment of free speech as a constitutional usurpation that disables the public.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/i8xx16

Danton wrote:
And that, in my opinion, would be the only result of your
"plan"...as well-meant it may/or may not be.
I rest my case."

Aside from the basic errors of your reply, corrected and modifying your summation, you've indirectly stated the plan presented here can succeed in defense of the constitution and restoration of constitutional federal government.

You are also informed that a critical test is applied to the US government via a criminal complaint to Holder, the AG, regarding congresses failure to convene state delegates for 100 years. We have 14 days+- until the last test an ordinary citizens can conduct towards showing of a usurped constitution is complete.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-re...

Your comment is appreciated, particularly the support for free speech. There is an ancient natural law doctrine that the published word has also not carried, probably intentionally because it is so empowering towards human unity relating to social structures, psychology and common goals.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Article 5 Is The Answer On So Many Levels !!

Hi there,
What a solution! I am not a political person by nature, but I recognize that we're in a heap of trouble if something doesn't get done NOW! What would be the next step for the average person who wants to be a part of this and is reading this for the first time?

Preserving the 2nd Amendment with our first right.

There are factions that have spent nearly 50 years in media and academia trying to make Americans afraid of their first constitutional right.

At this point, what is most fearful; losing your rights, or using law to preserve them? Maybe you haven't figured out they are using your $ to by their guns and ammo so they can come and TAKE your gun then enslave you. They are not Americans, trhey are infiltrators of the US government.

At this point, what is most fearful; losing your rights, or using law to preserve them is the question and message we need to carry to our fellow Americans.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

So good that people are realizing the urgency.

You ask a tough question.

But, in this case, the best, because you are trying to derive what everyone needs to know.

(a)We need free speech to have its vital meaning so we can re educate ourselves with vital truths.

(b)The American people need to invigorate their sociopolitical environment with more truth and less fear.

(c)The American people need to define American principles and purposes that they refuse to relinquish and initiate legal process immediately towards preserving those things.

Okay, without free speech (b) and (c) are not easy, which was why free speech was so heavily abridged. Those who feel the urgency need to gather to create a greater voice and demand those that propose change to present their strategies for public evaluation in a fully accountable fashion.
We've got too many non profit corporations diverting public attention from functional strategies. They have no accountability and are quite often nothing more than perhaps falsely created groups to dissipate and confuse activism.

What is reasonable to advise the viewer of the web forum, in answer, that wants to do something to act; is that they should get active on a set number of other high traffic forums and promote Article V. Problem, most know nothing of it and there is an entire misinformation network. In that case, get active posting asking about what is not understood, get educated and support that which has veracity in legal process.

With that understood, outreach to the disenfranchised or confused of the last 30 years of politics who think that the constitution is dead and gone because the government was so heavily infiltrated, hijacked; that now they think that "legal process" reflects the politics they object to and have known. All that they've known is fraud, and not the law of the land. We've never known that, we will have to create it.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Good thoughts and question!

Try contacting Bob Schulz at http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/

He has been working at some of the same issues for many years.

Schulz not communicating with public

Sadly Bob Schulz is not communicating with the public. Very sad because his plan is weak, so weak California doesn't have a representative for his organization yet.

http://givemeliberty.org

I get emails inviting me to webinars that my corporate obsoleted computer/software cannot even view. I think they are even charging for this one-way communication. He must be very out of touch with reality, at the least. However, his efforts are appreciated. I wonder where he got the money to make that website. It is extensive.

All of this while a petition for redress under the First Amendment has no authority to compel action but Schulz treats it as if it does while ignoring the Declaration of Independence "alter or abolish" which is codified into Article V as a power of our states.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Preparation for creating constitutional intent.

Very good, I'll try that.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?