153 votes

Congressman Tells Conservative Activists That Fighting For The Constitution Is A Losing Battle, Gets Blasted

This is the best video that I have seen in a while...

http://youtu.be/U46MkU_-_wE

.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Testing hasn't stopped since 9-11

and we are failing most, but at least not completely ignorant of the effort of usurpation and destruction of the social contract we depend on, our Constitution.
Boiling frogs notice eventually, it's all a matter of when the frog talk gets focused on the temperature rather than all the jumping around trying to cool off.

In our case unifying around the defense of the constitution directly by our use of Article V is the only way out. The problem is that the dumbing down and ancient, unreasonable social fears keep us clustered discussing how high to jump.

There has been a real effort to leave Article V out of the public education for over 100 years. That coupled with a near vacuum of discussion on natural law, and how it is integrated into the Constitution, leaves us without the basic ability to be the "Rightful masters of the congress and the courts" as Abe Lincoln described us.

Being aware of the above, I developed a strategy of "Preparatory Amendment" which limits amendments until Americans have the benefit of facts they will only learn by uses of free speech that do not currently exist.

"Preparatory Amendment" for Article V consists of 3 absolutely constitutional amendments.

1) End the abridging of free speech.
2) Secure the vote and reform elections
3) Reform campaign finance

If all delegates agree to propose and promote ratification of those three at the onset, then demand that the convention cease with ratification until the people are informed, it is assured that all amendments to follow will have 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 don't much understand

as an European what could be achieved with Art. V. Do I understand it well it is about a convention call?
I was working as an advisor in the top politics here - and I have had some achievements as securing the decisive one vote for the parliamentary reelection of our conservative/libertarian president (who for example invited Ron Paul here back in 2006 for in his carreer quite an unprecedented trip to Europe to promote Mises economy) or subsequently persuading him into vocal opposition against the Lisbon Treaty (euroconstitution) later resulting in an important exception for our country - so I'm a political realist - is it realistic to expect a successful national convention call without major political moves as for example Liberty movement forming a full blown official national party to push a convention call through at the State levels?

With the 9/11 it looks to me - as somebody who wrote and published a doctoral thesis about psychology of terrorism in 1997-2002 and subsequently researched alot about the 9/11 - quite a psychological deadlock. - You have all that 9/11 truth movement, which more or less successfully promotes a whole scale of more or less probable theories, sometimes blaming whoever they see fit to their preconceived ideologies - from CIA to state of Israel - but one really rarely sees somebody to cross the proverbial line to directly blame the most probable perpetrator which only from all the proposed perpetrators is the only one which could have prevented it, works in a regime realistically able to plan, keep secret, disguisse behind something looking benign, accomplish, cover-up, capitalize and exploit such a feat like 9/11 (-the same federal govt. agency which unsuccessfully proposed the "Operation Northwoods" in early 60's) - the principal perpetrator which one identifies when identifying in the radar records (notabene obtained and shortlivedly published by loyalists to the govt. version of events back in 2007) the literally hundreds of the planes in the skies close to the targets often disguissed by inappropriate squawk codes or even not squawking any transponder codes at all and disguissing themselves in the tight formations of other planes later showing clear features of certain types of planes never seen in a case of a civilian plane or even out of nowhere beginning later transpond the codes identifying their affiliations to the fleet of the agency - before and during and after the attacks - one for example don't see almost no other than the planes run by the agency in the skies around the Pentagon when the attack took place there and one also sees they came there from multiple different bases of this agency multiple subagencies. One sees the formations of the planes, from their airpath features most probably the airdefense alert fighterjets from the closest bases to both major targets being sent far north and south respectively long before the attacks even took place or even the alleged hijackings and returning just exactly in the moment of the attacks, together with tanker planes and refuelling operations needed later some of them even pretending to defense the targets long after they were attacked, or the mysterious plane out of southern Ohio circling and disappearing right over Shankswille site minutes after the alleged crash of the alleged "UAL-93" flight took place there, almost never discussed by anybody. Even if one shows the truthers the flightpaths pictures from the radars with the hundreds of planes identified - together with the long lists of the planes identifying the numerous bases where they took off and/or landed together with the timestamps, they somehow hardly believe you, it is perhaps too much for them to admitt they live under cryptical military dictatorship and they usually subsequently stonewall you - especially when the picture as often doesn't fit into their partial hypotheses. Even if one shows them the direct proofs from the officially obtained decoded blackbox data and their comparison with the same data redecoded later from the raw FDR files by nota bene loyalists to the govt. version of the events that the other fed. agency which partially investigated the 9/11 (alhough its jurisdiction was then almost unprecedently taken over by the other fed. agency having no expertise in the field) perpetrated federal fraud when clearly deliberately falsified some crucial parts of the data and their representations - together with the names of the perpetrators, they immediately delete (or put on infinite moderation status and never publish) articles about it and even ban you from their most major truther websites or at least the others (the better ones) put the texts in the burried sections where rarely anybody comes and you get only couple of hits there in literally years. Or for another example one obtains them on FOIA literally terabytes of additional data from other sources to corroborate the findings and they're barely even interested to look into it, not speaking that when one tryies to persuade them into looking into it they start calling names and even threaten you, especially when you use the multiple sets of available data corroborating each other to refute some of their absurd claims based on misinterpretations of something like literally one wittness confused claims which doesn't pass even a basic reality check of what he could have seen given his POV. So you're unfortunately right with the freedom of speech at least in this case, I'm quite skeptical and I think the frogs there even supply the heat needed to their boiling by their low jumping - so the testers more or less don't even need to supply it themselves anymore.

Alter or abolish, Declaration, 1776

tumetuestumefaisdubien wrote:
"I don't much understand as an European what could be achieved with Art. V. Do I understand it well it is about a convention call?"

Yes, but if 3/4 of the states begin agreeing on amendments from their own conventions it automatically is a convention.

Excerpt of Article. V.
"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. "

The important word is "intents". To assure that the people have to become the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts" (Lincoln). The people do that with free speech. Free speech is abridged. Article V can't properly happen with the abridging of free speech. Nor can much elese constitutional. There is a need for a formal preparation assuring constitutional intent through democratic actions, more fully justified by considering that in 1911, 31 of 46 states had applied. Preparation consists of ending the abridging of free speech, securing the vote and campaign finance reform. See this .pdf summary.

http://algoxy.com/ows/preparation_for_article_v.pdf

The entire truth movement is co-opted by the perps. They don't even know the true design of the core structure. Its all about useless info and misinfo.

I've made disclosure of knowledge of treason related to this factor pursuant to TIT18.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

Examine my site. It is very different, based on independently verifiable evidence and fully explains the WTC in absolutely feasible technical detail. There are also pages with screen shots of forum activism just like you describe, and worse perhaps.

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 thought so it has something with the convention call

yeah- alter or abolish, the duty - I once have written a 1776 words pamphlet about that when they wanted to pass the HR 1955/S 1959 free speech ban, but then they didn't, so I never published it.

"if 3/4 of the states begin agreeing on amendments from their own conventions it automatically is a convention" - isn't it enough 2/3? - "..on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.." I thought the 3/4 is to pass Amendments, not form a Convention.
3/4 - now 38 states
2/3 - now 34 states

In any case 31 states wouldn't be enough now and 1911 looks to me beyond limitations statutes unfortunately.

With the filling under USC 18 §2382 it is really very interesting, I rarely see one even consider something like that. I must look into it in detail.

Maybe here is another inspiration for USC 18 use - here §1001 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21076
mind the date and no comment from anybody whatsoever more than year after publication - the article was originally published in the section "latest news" and immediately moved to the "Study". -Still good - for example the 911blogger deleted the article just several minutes after I have posted it there and when I demanded explanation they mailed me some barely comprehensible pseudoarguments and restored the article in the "moderation status", never published even in the blog section and then baned me anyway for showing them an innocent and positively meant demonstration of a really major security hole which would allow me to literally delete whole their infamous 911blogger site ;) I still have that funny correspondence.
(I´m not completely undesired at Pilots4911T, because I helped Rob Balsamo a bit with the military radar analysis software for the 911Intercepted documentary, he even have put me on a prominent place in credits, but since I privately thoroughly rebutted some of the CIT absurd claims about the radar data the CIT knows s*it about last summer and proved CIT deliberately lying to me from the very beginning about their stance on the Triby 5gon video - they claimed from the very beginning the video proves 84Rades radar data being a fake - later repeatedly denying it - when it in fact exactly confirms the position of the C-130 on the military radar as I extensively proved to them from multiple sets of military and civilian radar data corroborating each other - ...and they called me names in such furious manner I never experienced anything like that - reason? The result of the C-130 flightpath projected in 3D showed exactly what their ANC wittnesses claim have seen, but at the same time completely destroyed their terrories about the C-130 flightpath they made based on confused misinterpretations of the wittness accounts and because not knowing anything about perspective illusions - I hope you at least generally grasp what I'm talking about - then I was warned I can be baned there if I continue - and I was also degraded from globmod, so since then I don't much post there and I'm very skeptical about the whole sense of continuing 9/11 research - I know the principal perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, almost nobody believes me, and I'm anyway very skeptical something can be done about a military junta with the taxpayers funded pile of WMDs and ruining whole states with their wars for profit the 911 was the pretext for, so why continue to bother with co-opted hysterical jerks at the truthers websites, I'm not even an American for me to vitaly need it or be able to do something about, so after years of detailed research of the 9/11 data I now rather spend my time watching what goes on with the Ron Paul movement where at least I feel some sense and hope although also quite skeptical that he can be nominated.)
I was always more into researching 5gon and especially the radar records and other mainly aviation data obtained on FOIA (I collaborated with kawika to obtain the terabytes of the National Archive 9/11 files - it was mainly his work, I just directed him what we want - which almost all are so reluctant to look into, but I somehow unfortunately lost contact with him after some state bastards here confiscated my apartment and I needed to fight them for half a year to get it back...) than the WTC research which I think is outside my expertise, but I surely would be very interested in your results.

There are no statute of limitations on Article V.

Any effort by congress to apply such is a violation of law, oath and the constitution. Congress has shown they intentionally misinterpret Article V in order to deny it for 100 years. No branch of the federal government will uphold the constitution. This formal criminal complaint was handed upwards to the criminal division of the AG's office for prosecution to "pass the buck".

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

911blogger won't even let me register. Absolutely a cointelpro forum. Most are. In fact I cannot say I've ever found one that is not. P4T is so I don't post there anymore.

I also don't do the pentagon because it is structured as a lose-lose situation by mind controlled military witnesses. I don't do planes either. I only argue the fact that the cause of death on 2970 death certificates is erroneous because NIST did not have the plans for the towers and FEMA lied to them about the core structure.

The reason 911blogger won't let me register is because my facts prove the assertion that the Twins had a steel reinforced cast concrete tubular core. Such is why the disclosure of knowledge of treason was filed in 2010.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

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?

power principle

Problem is that the several States forgot their supreme power, also I'm not sure whether they really want a Convention - I mean really and now - if they don't assert themselves its absolutely natural the feds assume the power and ignore the States, not speaking about the people. If the States really want the Convention, it is good to have Virginia and Maryland on board and best is to pass and deliver their applications say on November 1 ;) - you know what I mean... I would forget 1911, we live 2012.

With the concrete core do I understand it well you believe it had a significant load bearing function? I would somehow expect a core of such a building to be enclosed by selfsupporting reinforced concrete walls at least for fire safety reasons. But as I said I have no expertise in this.

The key to 5gon in my opinion are not the wittnesses and their confused interpreters (they anyway doesn't say anything too significant or even decisive - as you write: useless information) but the aviation data, there I've found the major issues. One even wonders how is it possible they left there so much to see almost the whole picture of the operation as like they have sent us their confession with signature. Unfortunately only couple of people understand what the data mean.

these ladies are awesome!!!

thank you for standing up for the constitution, that was awesome!!!

I want her for my congressperson!

My congressman Stephen Lynch of district 8 in Massachusetts is a low life worm with no spine and a deaf ear for the constitution and "We the People" whom it was written by and for!

Stephen Lynch, you are a low life WORM!

When voting for MA delegates, there were two individuals taking signatures, who are going to be Lynch's opponent.
That made my day!
I signed.
I pray one of them beats him into the ground and runs him out of town!

For these dear ladies....you did us all proud!
Keep on doing what you know is right and true!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

What a waste of energy.

Let me ask you two simple questions:

1. Have people not followed what is written in the constitution?

2. If so, has any of those people EVER faced a repercussion of any kind?

Last I checked the answers is YES and NEVER.

NEWS FLASH people:

The constitution is just 4 pieces of paper, basically a PR statement of a small gang of psychopathic people who merely assert the authority to make rules for everyone else and enforce them through violence. It's not a contract, no one signed it and even if it was last I checked it a contract can't be transferred to the signatory's posterity so why on Earth would anyone follow it when it so much more lucrative not to?

You are asking for human beings to act against their human nature and that's not going to happen, ever.

So the constitution either gave you the government that you have today or it was unable to prevent it, in either case it's unfit to fulfill it's intended role. Wake up already!

All there is is you and your freedom and if YOU aren't going to protect yourself and your freedom, no one will.

"So the constitution either

"So the constitution either gave you the government that you have today or it was unable to prevent it, in either case it's unfit to fulfill it's intended role."

hmmmm... where have I seen this before?

You don't have a beard and run a free market postal service, do you? ;)

EDIT: I like how there are more 'anti-constitutionalists' or at least 'non-constitution worshippers' on the DP. Years ago it was slim pickins... even though we're still clearly in the minority, we do seem to be increasing our ranks around these parts! keep fighting the good fight!

I voted you UP...

I remember watching a youtube one night during the '08 campaign...the guy in the video really caught my attention. I'll see if I can find it.

It reminded me of what I first thought about the Constitution when I was a little boy...

"So, just because I'm born here in the U.S. I have to abide by what these rulers say...because of a piece of paper written over 200 years ago??"

After learning about the Constitution and the general thought behind it... to have a limited government, just enough government to protect the rights of the people... I began to have a different mindset...

"Ok, so I have to abide by these rules, but at least these rules are better than the rules anywhere else in the world."

But it still leaves the question:

Why do I have to participate in a system that was set up over 200 years ago by some old men in white-haired wigs? Because of this piece of paper, signed by these "leaders" long before I was born, I have to give up a portion of my income for the rest of my life? And abide by their rules???

But...

We have to fight for something... and people have a lot of respect for the Constitution (even if they don't what it says or why).... and the founders really did seem to write a good set of rules to limit the government's power...

Besides, complete anarchy is a hard sell. (Even though I think it might work out better in the long run.)

Two things

First, the income tax came about as an Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 and had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. Also, the collective intelligence of those "old men in white-haired wigs" would far surpass any group of politicians, kings, rulers, and even despots in today's modern world. Funny how in over 200 plus years, no one has come up with anything better.

Second, like it or not, the Constitution has been deemed the supreme law of the land. But as an American citizen you have a choice and the freedom to do several things. You can move to another country if you feel it has a better system of government, you can preach anarchy (although you already have doubts about that), or you can work to make this a better country by electing officials who will remain true to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is the drift away from the Constitution, along with the increased acceptance of socialistic values and Keynesian economics, that has gotten us into the mess we are in today.

Isn't it funny how much

Isn't it funny how much people around here get hurt from just reading some facts that they instantly have to down vote my post.

And if anything I wrote in my post isn't a fact, please, don't hesitate to correct me.

Neg reps comin' your way

Neg reps comin' your way hommie! :D

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine

(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ (╯°□°)╯┻━┻ "RON PAUL 2012 DAMNIT!"

I downvoted you too

It is sad someone not even American must correct your incorrect absurdities.
Even if the US Constitution would be a contract as you claim, the contracts, for example corporate shares, are quite routinely transfered to posterity - that's quite a common part of the inheritance procedures.
The US Constitution is not a contract, it is one of the organic laws passed by Congress and State legislatures constituting legal entity USA - see here: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt And there you will also find the names of the people who signed it on behalf of the States and also (in the Art. 6) that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - which makes clear they signed it as law not a contract.
It is true that certain parts of the US Constitution limiting federal power aren't sufficiently followed and enforced and some even claim - as the poor Rep. Gosar - that to stand for the Constituion and nothing less is a losing battle, and that "not everybody believes in the Constitution", allegedly "50% of the people", but you've seen in the video this discussion is about, that it is really not met with consent of the other people sitting there and surely and definitely some congressman's confused opinion is irrelevant and anyway doesn't mean that the US Constitution isn't a law in force or that it should not be followed and enforced. A supreme law of the land is clearly something which should be followed and enforced absolutely regardless of somebody believing it or not. The state is not a church where you don't go when the priest preaches there something you don't believe. If you murder somebody and they bust you, they'll also prosecute you regardless whether you believe the murder statute in the penal code or not. And anyway for repealing the US Constitution you would need 3/4ths of State legislatures to agree with it, so even if the Rep. Gosar's "50%" figure would be somehow true it still would not be enough and the Constitution will stand as a law in force anyway.
And yes, the US Constitution was successfully used for the purpose of rights and liberties defense in thousands and thousands court cases including prosecutions, so your second answer is patently false.

There are no facts, only

There are no facts, only interpretations.

"The economy's not a class you can master in college. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge."

reedr3v's picture

I hope the last woman to speak does a lot

more public speaking.

You know how you get a House

You know how you get a House intern pregnant?

Dress her up as the Constitution.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Well, I'd like to hear the

Well, I'd like to hear the rest of what he said.

I guess what he's saying is that he has to keep breaking the Constitution until most people are for following the Constitution, but there is also a lot of editing going on, so he may have clarified his remarks and had it cut out.

Personally, I would say we're at the point where 50% legitimately believe in FDR's "living, breathing, we don't need a stinking amendment" Constitution from 1935. And 49% really don't understand it enough to have a solid opinion.

But they are right. It doesn't MATTER how many people are ignorant of or wroung about the Constitution.

We PAY these people to uphold it, they swear to uphold it and we have every right to demand that they do. This isn't mob rules and never was.

And sadly, I bet I could trip every one of them up on key Constitutional issues where they believe that the government has the power and they do not. There's a whole lot of rabid Constitutionalists out there that think immigration is a federal power, for instance.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Reveals the mentality of most politicians

That its all about numbers, polls, votes, and that abused word, consensus, not the principles held by the founding fathers that guided them in writing the Constitution.

Doesn't matter if 50%, 75% or 99.9% don't accept or believe in the Constitution. Unalienable rights trump whatever any and all majority thinks.

But that's the problem. Ignorant sheeple look to the Constitution as giving us rights, instead of understanding it's purpose is to protect the rights we already have at birth. Remove or alter the Constitution, and the firewall between us and government authority is gone, creating the classic metaphor where wolves and sheep meet together to discuss what's on the menu for dinner--and we know who gets the last word in that scenario!

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

50% my ass I honestly think

50% my ass

I honestly think we have more than 50% that want the consitution

The Congressman really stepped in it this time.

One of the panel is (among other things) a disabled Army veteran.

Everyone to the left of the MC is a Board member of UIA grassroots org that apparently has the ear of TeaParty Congressmen. (I found this while looking for the complete video)
http://www.uniteinaction.org/uia/AboutUs/BoardOfDirectors.aspx

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

I bet you most people here on DP

and reading, watching this thread have not!

What if ...

... one or more states passed a law that, in order to be on the ballot for federal office, the candidate must declare under penalty of perjury that they have read the US Constitution and that they will uphold it, and if any person is elected and then clearly violates his oath, then he can be tried in STATE court for perjury?

Just a thought.

That piece of trash, Gosar...

...is "my" Congress-critter. Imagine that, a DENTIST who has fluoridating ALL water in AZ as a high priority!! What a surprise that he also thinks the Constitution is now "optional."

See you soon at a candidates forum near my home, buddy ;-)

Thank you for identifying

Thank you for identifying him.

Big difference between what is and what should be.

Yes the Constitution should be followed, and yes it is not followed.

The question is if it is possible to eliminate the laws that violate it, and so far the conclusion is that freedom is lost and unlikely to be restored.

If we don't see reality, then we are wasting our efforts, which efforts I believe are better spent pushing States to exert their authority with the ultimate goal of ending the uncontrollable federal government.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Gives me some hope...

Gives me some hope...

Stand United!

Thank you conservative activists!

For freedom!

WOW!!!

Awesome!