-8 votes

If we do not know the purpose of prime Constitutional rights, and why they are prime, can we hope to restore Constitutional GOV?

In order to make a serious, but artificially created dysfunction obvious in the thinking of Americans seeking to defend the constitution,I had to alter the natural order of introduction of a proper perspective on the priority and use of constitutional right needed to restore constitutional government.

Article V, which very few, if any, really understand, requires robust free speech in order to assure all amendments have constitutional intent.

Big problem, Americans do not know that free speech has a specific purpose. That is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood. Such is the constitutional intent of the right and Article V is where the constitutional intent is used.

The idea was to demonstrate that Americans indeed do not know the purpose of free speech. This thread does that.

http://www.dailypaul.com/302112/can-one-american-state-the-p...

I developed the most fundamental definition possible for the the ultimate purpose free speech in the hope it may be understood and recognized uniformly in agreement which is this form of unity.

So the thread which is logically first, because our first right is Article V, and it needs free speech in order to operate with constitutional intent; actually had come second, so people could see that we are disabled from using our first right because we do no know the purpose of our second right, freedom of speech.

http://www.dailypaul.com/304315/is-there-an-american-that-kn...

The first thread was very revealing in that most people thought its purpose was a point of law, rather than natural law, philosophy, almost biology. There was semantical confusion also or perhaps some of that was intended infiltration.

I would like to hear from 1988vote regarding their post in the thread. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3236592
Which I agree with, but would like them to explain themselves, relating to the statement, "this is mind numbing". I would guess that the infiltrators absurd position basically has them saying that free speech is not to assure survival, has a cognitive numbing effect.

There was a lot of unaccountability there as well- for example, Mark Vette http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3231781 There was a lot of "drive by posting", and almost no accountability to the actual, fundamental greater purpose of free speech. General support will not work here. Specific support for a general and primary purpose will work.
Americans are divided and contentious about the facts of their worlds, depending on where they get their information as well as many other things. Faithkills did not support their position here, which I well answered with constitutional intent http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3230567 .

Consider. Those who are usurping the constitution must oppose anything which can protect or enforce it. Therein is the motive of the infiltrator rather than promoting any idea or strategy of their own. Accordingly we need to err on the side of the constitution. Infiltrators can never accept Article V, but pretend to support change that can actually only happen with Article V.

In order to prevail, Americans seeking to restore constitutional government will have to be painfully accountable. Those who support the constitution unconditionally will feel no pain, only joy.

Unaccountables:
tony m http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250398

wraiththirteen http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3249959

Klaus7 http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3248775

Ozark Hillbilly http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3248731

From extensive expereince I've found, typically, that the last attempt at blocking cognition of effective strategy opposing un constitutional government, after all else fails; is the poster(s) that pretends to not be able to understand. Consider, this is cognitive infiltration. If they try this in the beginning of the threads life, they are exposed by not being accountable, over and over, to understanding common knowledge aspects that anyone can understand. Notice, the poster never says exactly what part they do not understand. Notice there is only one.
In the past, I've seen several pretending to not be able to understand simple aspects of this hoping that any difficulty in understanding, or sorting the posts of the un accountable, distracting posters, becomes too much and the viewer actually gives up on understanding.

BillRow http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3254697
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3256667
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3256794

Below is what real, sincere posters do. These are the real people. Accordingly, any who are sincere, use this as a model for how to NOT impair that which you support by either being fully accountable to your position, or, changing your position and explaining why; or admitting that your position lacks the support justifying the conviction you have which has you opposing a concept for restoration of constitutional government. In that you are identifying an intuitive conviction which another may be able to support, making your position correct; properly empowering our efforts to restore constitutional government.

Accountable Americans'
The only American to fall close to the mark did so with the statement, "the right to establish a Constitution". Returning to the Declaration of Independence, "alter or abolish", which Article V is derived from; is to propose re-establishing parts of the constitution.
Kelldor http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3249523

A fully comprehensive explanation of the specifics relating to the overall strategy of this action of agreement.
Kelldor http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3252303

The Obscure:
The Pen http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3252014

Enonesoch http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250199

addunham http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250161

Supportive but nbon-commital
go213mph http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250507

INTERACTIVE but not accountable:
The chickenator http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3251336
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250628

HVACTech http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3248737

No matter what, the notion of preparing properly for Article V completely changes the prospective outcome, making Article V completely safe, and this post underlines the fact.

Christopher A. Brown http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3250867

Now, compare the above threads basic level of interaction with the below thread and the accountability of the member creating the original post. The below demonstrates an absolutely sincere American ready to examining facts.

http://www.dailypaul.com/304916/the-origins-of-sovereign-cit...

If what this thread is about is understood, those posting here who support the constitution unconditionally, should contact the admin of this forum with a link to this thread and request a new "accountability" forum where something so basic as "Preparatory Amendment" for Americas most important political event ever, can be discussed the responsibility.




Comment viewing options

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

What.

Brown, you're one of the very few people here on my "downvote on sight" list.

Know why?

Because the second someone dares to disagree with you, or even suggest something different, or point out a flaw in your oh-so-perfect plan, you immediately call them a "cognitive infiltrator," whatever that's supposed to mean. I know you've called me that several times.

The funny thing is, I more or less agree with your definition of what free speech is... the problem is that you're an arrogant, condescending douchebag about everything. Am I a "cognitive infiltrator" for calling you out on being a snot?

For the record, while I more or less agree with the basic definition, I don't think your plan would work at all. Revising the 1st Amendment would do nobody any good, simply because the government has already brutally violated almost all of the Bill of Rights by this point. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a revision of a mutilated amendment would do any good.

Apparently you have no idea of what I'm doing

If we cannot unify with other Americans using agreement which is universal, we cannot know one another in this environment and gain politically effective untiy. If that agreement happens also to reflect constitutional intent, we cannot defend the constitution.

If you behave in such away, you set such an example by default. You are as effective at blocking unity as a cognitive infiltrator. Why should I have 2 names for such a thing? The alt is your thinking was infiltrated years before you began typing and that would make you perhaps normal in this failing society. You cannot understand, justify or participate in unity required for our survival which is exactly what the infiltrators of the US government fear most, so forbid all infiltrations to support absolutes of unity.

America has no culture except TV culture. What ever the corporations want is what is known. Culture is about needs, corporations meet our and love to confuse wants with needs for us.

This action is only necessary because of cognitive infiltration which fouls cognitive processes and taints perceptions with attitudes which disallow simple process of agreement that are a part of culture. There are many false posters and groups of posters with a shared agenda. Their very presence, and we've all been made afraid of surveillance for years, discourages agreement upon any information useful in constitutional restoration. If you are a sincere American and know the threat to our lives in a corporate controlled economy under a secret government, then a simple agreement of this type is no sacrifice for you to make. It's an opportunity. The NWO loves it that you attempt to portray as you do.

" you immediately call them a "cognitive infiltrator," whatever that's supposed to mean."

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2010/01/20/cognitive_i...

And this . . . does not cognit. It is circular.

"Revising the 1st Amendment would do nobody any good, simply because the government has already brutally violated almost all of the Bill of Rights by this point. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a revision of a mutilated amendment would do any good."

Gee, you've given up on it already, or you are saying there is no point fixing it because it is broken:-(

We are a mutilated society because the original natural law doctrine which "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are a part of was mutilated, dismembered in selectivity starting in 1876.

BTW, do you accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood?

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?

Oh Pull - eze. This again?

Dude. Give it a rest.
Unaccountability? I object to your insinuations and accusations.
All of my points were valid then, as they are now.
I'm not the one who is claiming we need an Amendment to the Constitution to support the Constitution.
The only thing 'disabling' us is our complacency.
You were privy to a conversation with a Native American who told you the drafters of our founding documents did not use the entire body of their concept regarding free speech. Big deal. Somehow you think the more expansive description, in the form of an Amendment, will make information more accessible.
They (Meaning the President, Congress and all of the agencies subordinate; executive and shared) are no longer following the Constitution as it is written. NDAA, ObamaCare, prosecuting of whistle-blowers by Obama under the antiquated 1917 Espionage Act. Not to mention Feinstien introducing a bill passed into law the specifies who a 'lawful journalist' is, and therefore who is protected by freedom of speech, and who is not.
You think a rewrite or addition will make any difference to them? You're a dreamer. Even a bit egotistical, if I may say so.
I say that because this thread is just a rehash of the previous.
Trying, yet again, to sell folks on your "fundamental definition", and the (apparent) need to have it spelled out in an Amendment that you have drafted (Or whoever wrote it).
Meaningless. Oh, I know YOU think it has great meaning and will change things forever - Somehow, with the stroke of a pen, we will become informed of things we were not aware of, they will unload all of their secrets because ... the true definition of free speech is spelled out for all to see and obey. That'll show 'em, by God! Sheesh!
You really cannot fathom how ridiculously naive that sounds?
Seriously?
Let me reiterate: They do not obey the Constitution as it stands today. And, it stands to restrict the Government from doing exactly what they are doing.
No amount of wordsmithing the Constitution will make them share information they don't want us to know, or change what they are doing.
We have to find out for ourselves and share what's going on.
Hence forums like DP.

Furthermore; I will not stand to be accused of some trumped up act of "blocking cognition" by some narcissistic wanna-be with delusions of grandeur.(You sure it's not constipation that's blocking you up? Just askin')
Listen up; I don't 'drive by'. That's for cowards. Face to face, toe to toe - keep swinging (or shooting) till someone falls.
I'm old school like that.
Got it?
Now, I'll ask you, only once - Please refrain from insulting me in future posts. It belittles you and does nothing to advance your attempt for a consensus.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

You have not been accountable to the real impacts of

"Preparatory Amendment" and what it can do for an Article V convention.

All of my points were valid then, as they are now.

Maybe, I'm not discussing those aspects in this topic. What I'm doing is more fundamental. It is developing our ability to define constitutional intent.

I'm also developing a method for exposing cognitive infiltration. If you continue to be off topic, distractive and FAIL to state you accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood, then you might be working to destroy the constitution, or the public appreciation of what it really is.

Get off your high horse and be accountable.

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?

Of Course, I see ... As would anyone capable of

Of Course, I see ... As would anyone capable of independent thought.
I'm a traitor, then, eh? A dissident. Or, would you call it heretic?

And I quote,

I'm also developing a method for exposing cognitive infiltration. If you continue to be off topic, distractive and FAIL to state you accept that free speech has the purpose of assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood, then you might be working to destroy the constitution, or the public appreciation of what it really is.

So, if I do not accept your description of "free speech", and state it publicly as fact for all to see, then I am undermining the Constitution. As you see it.
Is that what you're saying?
(It IS what you're saying)

Sounds a bit ... authoritative.
I mean, you know, for a guy who claims that I have a right to free speech, by any definition.

well, Bubba ...
I am not required to be accountable to you ...this still is the United States of America. I have no obligation to be accountable to anyone, save myself.
Or ... Pray, tell us ...
Has that concept, which is the product of a Republic, changed as well?
Or, is it just pertaining to me, personally? Because, you say so, correct?

Again, to quote your Majesty,

Maybe, I'm not discussing those aspects in this topic. What I'm doing is more fundamental. It is developing our ability to define constitutional intent.

You referenced the original post where those aspects are prevalent. As well as my reply to you. You referenced it as supporting data to this post. That puts it squarely within this 'discussion'.
You opened the door, counselor. Closing it ... now that I've pointed it out ... would be exactly what your philosophy (and the currently written First Amendment) would guard against.
Yes?

Again, I state:
(From ground level - No horse; high or otherwise)
Your proposal to alter the Constitution in the quotidian manner you've described is unnecessary.
Constitutional intent has been defined by the Federalist
Papers. You know of these, do you not? Written by the very authors of the document in question.
But, of course, you've spoken to a man who says they did not include the intent of the free speech doctrine from which they borrowed.
And, you're out to change all that.
In the interest of free speech.
The very same free speech you have attempted to use against me when I speak in opposition of you and your ridiculous obsession to define free speech.
Has everyone who is reading this post recognized the logic fallacy here?
More to the point, do you see it, Christopher?
Doubtful. You did not see it the last time we sparred.
No reason to think you've grown since then.
Shame, that. Learning is usually the most profound benefit from reading the Daily Paul.
Perhaps you are immune to the "cognitive enrichment" effect it has?

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Accountability please-for an error

regarding what you say, I say.

You have misrepresented what I'm doing.

"You referenced the original post where those aspects are prevalent. As well as my reply to you. You referenced it as supporting data to this post. That puts it squarely within this 'discussion'."

Yea, ref links were posted, but the original posts there about the purpose of free speech or the first right does not do or go where you say. I avoid all the legalisms except prime purpose to establish that rights exist for specific purposes. The threads are about the purposes of the rights within our survival and adaptation.

Misrepresentation is a common tool of cognitive infiltrators.

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 cannot show overt respect for the vital purpose

of free speech assuring survival then you are against American unity by example. A biologist would extend that to humanity.

So, if I do not accept your description of "free speech", and state it publicly as fact for all to see, then I am undermining the constitution

If you cannot comment upon preparatory amendment then you are acting against our capacity to defend our constitution which logically requires citizens to know constitutional intent in order to assure all amendments have it. Free speech has this purpose. Article V is the right to "alter or abolish" abusive gov described in the DOI.

If you cannot respect the intent of the constitution, then you will have no respect for the vital aspects of its rights and their purposes of enabling our unity in defense of it. Your action with words represents a covert social attack upon the very human principles underlying these rights.

This is a very logical test, and you are failing.

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 have the utmost respect for the Constitution ...

It's YOU I have no respect for.

I'm not against American unity.
I'm against YOUR repeated attempts at trying to sell folks on your proposed amendment(s).
I think you have a very narrow focus. "Tunnel vision". You're convinced you are the savior of the 'people' and only YOU know what's best. That would be your free speech doctrine added to the Constitution.
You're seeking it's validation. And, you are obviously not getting any. Otherwise you would not need to continue reintroducing this so often. If folks found your effort worthy, it would stand on it's own. However, the more you try to promote it, and desperately defend it, the further your position degrades.
Lashing out at me only serves to expose that ego of yours ... and how it is so easily bruised.

... you are acting against our capacity to defend our constitution which logically requires citizens to know constitutional intent ... Free speech has this purpose.

No, my attack is against you, specifically. I tried reason. But, that does not work when dealing with someone who is without it.
We already have the capacity to defend our Constitution.
We lack the public support (for now) and the organization essential to any effort at defending it. OR altering or abolishing the GUS (Gov of US).
Your grand and glorious proposal will ...
do absolutely nothing to rally the troops. As I've said, it would have already been a sweeping movement by now.
Even at the "A greater US" website it barely reached a 20% approval rating.
http://www.agreater.us/billpage.php?id=398


Your action with words represents a covert social attack upon the very human principles underlying these rights.


??
Furthermore, and maybe I'm wrong, (but ...I'm not) it seems anyone who questions your voracity is some sort of master infiltrator, hell bent on America's destruction if they dare to undermine your great and good free speech revelation.

There is no threat to our God given rights coming from my corner. Again, you paint me with too broad a brush.
I am attacking YOU. Your silly message. And your inflated ego.
Seriously, dude.
Seek your fame at something else. Because, this? This is not it.
IMHO, of course.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

A misrepresentation of the OP?

The OP had no proposed amendment.

"I'm against YOUR repeated attempts at trying to sell folks on your proposed amendment(s)

I've made no proposals for amendments in the OP.

I've only stated issues that I know can only be dealt with by amendment.

Why are you here,

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?

Semantics, Christopher ...

And prelude.

I've only stated issues that I know can only be dealt with by amendment.

And, you're telling me you don't have an amendment already penned that would address those very issues you have so thoughtfully brought to our attention?
As I have stated previously, you link to the post where you do propose such an amendment. Don't link to it if you do not want it to be entered as part of your post. Just sayin'.
C'mon, though. Seriously. We both know you fancy yourself a 'solutions' guy. The man with the answers to those issues. Issues which are ... well, issues that are not as immediately vital compared to, say ... ending the NDAA.

You want accountability? So do I!
How about forcing the Attorney General to file criminal charges (not just a monetary settlement of fines with no admission of guilt) against banks that have been found to operate illegally or face impeachment. And, do his job by hold accountable those Government agencies and their managers who have crossed the line, repeatedly. Both lawful and legal transgressions. End the drone strikes. Hold the Fed accountable for the boom and bust economic roller coaster and inflation they create. A lot of issues are much more pressing, in my opinion, of course.
Okay, here you go ... This is what irks me:
Your reply to criticism is to promptly accuse that person of being anti-Constitutional, or unpatriotic, or of NWO influence, etc if they do not agree with your assessment and / or solution of whatever the issue being addressed. It's a classic aggressive, retaliatory response.
I, personally, am not a 'turn the other cheek' kinda guy. More of a stand my ground if you wrong me type. So, when you start throwing those fictitious labels at me, and don't even acknowledge you were in error, you can expect a critical reply.
Furthermore, in my opinion of the above post, you are too distracted with holding a bunch of forum posters accountable for replies on your posts. So obsessed, in fact, that you ask members to 'band together' and, well ... let's use your own words:

"... those posting here who support the constitution unconditionally, should contact the admin of this forum with a link to this thread and request a new "accountability" forum"

I think the Admin has plenty on his plate. But, here's a novel idea - Why don't YOU start a new accountability forum? It would reflect exactly what you think it should be, since you've created it!
Doesn't that make more sense than putting an extra burden onto the DP Admin?
Of course, there are a some bumps on your way to the forum of your dreams ... Everyone must conform to your definition of accountability. I'll just take a guess at a contextual definition and say commitment to interaction is a form of the accountability you seek. Yes?
And, presumably, those who do not comply would be admonished, or blocked, correct? Couldn't have just anyone posting there, right?
So, if the section entitled, "Accountable Americans" from your post here is any indication, then not many ... if anyone at all would make the grade. After all, we must view your interaction with johny-boy as the prime example ...
(Quoted from the OP above)

Now, compare the above threads basic level of interaction with the below thread and the accountability of the member creating the original post. The below demonstrates an absolutely sincere American ready to examining facts.

Why am I here?
I could pen an expansive cosmic answer to that one.
Naw.
Do you mean today? 'Cause today I'm here defending myself against your insulting and false accusations. Still awaiting that apology.
Or, is that above your "accountability"?
Gotcha there, eh? Or, is it just everyone else who must be accountable? You are exempt from that scrutiny because ... um ... Oh, I know! Because it was your idea! Silly me.

In general, I come to be informed. To read thought provoking posts and essays from the very astute membership of DP. The exclusion of yours goes without saying.
And, as many do, to voice opinion.
Hence, the comment section. This morning, your comment section in particular.
And, that would be full circle.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

You still haven't been accountable to the purpose of free speech

as vital for sharing and understanding of information vital to survival.

Again you misrepresent what I'm doing.

"And, you're telling me you don't have an amendment already penned that would address those very issues you have so thoughtfully brought to our attention?"

No, I'm not telling you that. You are trying to make people think such a thing or that it is on topic. You obviously want to change the subject, obsfucate and evade being accountable to recognizing a fundament that can be used to bring Americans together to work on proposing amdndment fundamental to ending the abridging of free speech.

And, why are you here? Because it really looks like you are against the basic purposes of our prime rights.

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 have to be

You still don't get it.
I do not have to be accountable to your obsessions. No one does. This IS The United States, after all. Maybe not for long, but today it is.
We have the freedom to choose what we thing is good for us. Or reject something being forced down our throat. Do you really want us to go back to being a Republic? I do. In a Constitutional Republic all we have to be accountable to is ourselves.
Oh, I recognize something all right. I see all the signs of an obsessive-compulsive with NPD ... who is clinging to his claim of being our savior and consolidator because he thinks his free speech philosophy is the bee's knees and if everyone would just accept it, we'd all be so much better off. Everyone would have to share everything they know that (someone) has deemed is vital information. Because free speech means we're supposed to be informed by (someone who is keeping track of these things?) and we never need worry again that the Government is lying to us. Because (your upgraded) free speech means the HAVE to tell us.
Oh, sorry, your Highness. Did I speak out-of-turn? A thousand apologies.

In a pig's eye.
Since you have avoided every opportunity to correct your wrongful accusations to me, this will be my last comment in your posts.
I'm giving you more attention than you deserve. I'll just watch this thread die off - just like your amendment - for lack of support.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Clearly you cannot support that the purpose of

free speech is to assure that information needed for survival is shared and understood.

You cannot because that would help Americans unify in defense of the constitution and empower them to see the restoration of constitutional government.

You cannot because you are here to disempower Americans from unity and defense of the constitution and your consistent evasion of the request to state your acceptance of the purpose of free speech as it is generalized to increase the understanding of the right and its vital aspects. You were given opportunities to state why you are here, you did not.

In defense of the constitution it is cautious and prudent to assume vette is in deed, with his actions a cognitive infiltrator.

Your closing statement indicates what your masters want Americans to think is happening to this effort and why. It is not true. What is true is that you, and many like you have posted in this and other threads, not just mine, with the mission of; confusion, distraction, misinformation and misleading; so Americans cannot unify behind the principals of their constitution.

ON EDIT:
Does the law of the land have more force than obssession? If so my perseverance is not obsession, it is loyalty to the law 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?

Seriously, seek professional psychiatric help for OCD & NPD

OCD, NPD & DD (Delusion Disorder. Formally called Paranoid Delusion Disorder)

Paranoid Delusion Disorder -
"People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against*, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.

*Conspired against
You said:

"What is true is that you, and many like you have posted in this and other threads, not just mine, with the mission of; confusion, distraction, misinformation and misleading; so Americans cannot unify behind the principals of their constitution."

I know you cannot see the above quote of yours as a delusion. To you, it seems very real. I assure you, it is fiction.
But, ask around. Many folks know me here. I am a genuine truther and freedom fighter. And, a pragmatist. Which is why I think your crusade is a distraction. A complete waste of valuable time and resource.
However, it's not just me.
Looking at your history of postings here reveals overwhelming disregard for what you deem to be of the utmost importance, as evidenced here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/298310/
Only one member had a comment. Not in support. So, rejected, basically.
Here:
www.dailypaul.com/302112
Where most were saying free speech was already spelled out in the Constitution. The vast majority said, in summary, your 'purpose of' was not a remedy, nor was it needed. Again, rejected.
But, do you read the writings and heed the comments of the very members that you say you're trying to "save"? All of them good and righteous men & women seeking a libertarian return to a Constitutional Republic.
No.
You insultingly accuse every single member who voices any opposition, or those who see you as a complete nutter, (my personal opinion) of being a Cognitive Infiltrator.
A conspirator. Oh, my. So many folks conspiring against you. Are you keeping count? (Please see the second paragraph referencing Paranoid Delusions. If the shoes fit, that must be it.)
Of course, not one to take the obvious hint, you post this:
http://www.dailypaul.com/304315
Where, again, most reject your post. Describing it as confusing, unnecessary, unneeded and not worth the time to debate you on it. Those folks, all good standing members who write intelligent posts and comments, are summarily tried and convicted by you as being against the Constitution, and labeled as (your favorite term de jour) a Cognitive Infiltrator. (Again, reference back to Paranoid Delusions.)
And, to the evidence of just how nutty you are; Even to the few (2 or 3) members who comment agreement in principal to a portion of your argument, you come back, in your uniquely insulting prose, and lay on how they don't see the 'big picture' like you do. Interlacing explanation with self praise until the two become one.
If that was not enough (Not for you. It was plenty enough for the rest of us, however.) You post this current thread, a re-branding of those that came before it.
As with them, it has been equally rejected by the majority of the astute members here.
And, true to form, they (we) are labeled as anti-Constitutional, anti-American ... and the worst offense of all ... Anti-Christopher A, Brown!
How dare they! It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! All of 'em are NWO!

I point out that anyone observant could see patterns of abnormal behavior. Unfortunately, the patient is incapable of seeing beyond the delusion until confronted with it. And, even then, may deny what is right in front of them.
Time to seek help, Christopher. Stop the denial. You are sick.
The good news? You can be treated!
For most cases, counseling is an adequate remedy. But, please beware, don't let them rely on psychotropic pharmaceuticals unless they have laboratory verified tests confirming a chemical imbalance in your brain matter. Otherwise, you're a walking zombie. No one except Big Pharma wants that for you.
I Hope you at least look into it.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Evasion and attempts at ad hominium will not serve

you.

As I stated, and you have proven; you cannot support the purpose of free speech because that is against the agenda of your masters.

Thank you for making that agenda so plain and easy to see.

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're not going to get it.

Nope. You're not going to get the reaction you're hoping for.
Why?
Because anyone who looks into your post history can see they have been overwhelmingly rejected. Look at those negative votes you've garnered.
Is that some kind of record for negatives on DP? Must be. Or close to it.
It shows no one thinks you are right. No one thinks you are contributing quality material.
That is a huge blow to the Ego of a man such as yourself, is it not?
All you have left is to banter with whoever allows you the grace of their reply.
And, brace yourself now, I am revoking mine as of this post.
You are now and forever blocked.
So sad.
I won't miss you a bit. Not even a memory of this waste of time will ever be revisited.
mangiare merda e morire

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Your continued failure to accept the commen sense definition

for free speech, within that, showing a complete lack of concern such failure causes in a normal human being is what I'm after.

I noticed you haven't tried to state free speech does not have the purpose of assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood. That would be obviously too stupid to be a real American.

"ecause anyone who looks into your post history can see they have been overwhelmingly rejected. Look at those negative votes you've garnered."

That would be your fellow infiltrators. Now we have an idea of how many there are, or real Americans who have been successfully mislead. The vote system exists for infiltrators to be unaccountable.

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?

It seems you are against free speech having

any more meaning than it currently does.

I mean you are already trying to attack a proposed amendment to end the abridging of free speech, that has not been proposed.

If you have any intention at all, to restore constitutional government, how would you propose it be done?

If you we're serious about restoration, you could answer that in 3 sentences rather than 10 paragraphs.

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?

Free Speech is already defined sufficiently

Really? Three sentences?
It took you 17 above, yet I am to be 'restricted' to three.
Again, you put a damper on free speech, either knowingly or not.

Only YOU consider free speech to be abridged.
Everyone else is fine with it as it stands.
I do agree one of your other Article V proposals in order to restore us to a Constitutional Republic, namely getting the money out of politics. As Jesse Ventura says, We're the only country whose laws are passed by bribing the representatives and calling it campaign contributions.
Strict term limits is another. No more career politicians.
Perhaps a consensus of constituents should be sought for each new bill before it is voted on. That way the representative, and the people, would know if it is deemed to be in the public interest or just for corporate gains.
Also, get the corporations back to being business entities. They should be defined as such, and not considered to be a 'person' with individual rights.
Oh, look. More than three sentences.
Still waiting for YOU to be accountable
and apologize for the slanderous accusations you hurled at me.
Funny, that. It would figure the one who is screaming for accountability has none of his own.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Attacking the one who tries to create an appreciation for the

purpose of free speech and other prime rights while failing to comment upon what the concept of "Preparatory Amendment" does to the environment looks very much like nwo infiltration priority controls your act here.

Basically you are saying no to alter or abolish, our first right, and you are saying the status quo of media misinfo, and manipulation is okay. With a handle like vette, it is pretty clear you are not sincere and choose to present yourself by association with a competent notion. Well, it's over here.

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?

BTW ... As to the Handle: Vette

You could have asked. As you can see, I'm not shy.
But, no. Not you. Always thinkin' you've got it all figured out. Then, proceed to assume facts that are not in evidence and build fiction based on that false premise.
Again - NPD, dude. Blatantly displayed for all to see.

'Vette ... As in, "Corvette". Ya know, the only true production sports car built in the US since '53.
I drive one. A C4 coupe. I say drive, but really ... she's more like a rocket on wheels. Add a pair of wings and I just might get airborne.

And that is the real basis of my nick.
So, what's next? You gonna say since the name Mark is derived from Mars I must be warlike and always lookin' for conflict?

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Basically, I am saying your meds are not strong enough ...

to cope with your NPD.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Symptoms:

- Believing that you're better than others, especially those who disagree with you.

- Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness.

- Exaggerating your achievements, works, talents or intellect.

- Believing that your ideas or insights into a particular subject are exclusively unique, special in fact. 'Cracked the Code', as it were. And demand recognition as such by your peers.

- Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior.

- Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings.

- Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans.

- Accusing those who question your wisdom (or disagree with your idea, plan, interpretation, summation and/or solution) of being disloyal, anti-(whatever you are for), working with the enemy, sedition and it goes on (This is also a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia)

Displaying any one of the above is cause for concern. You display many.
Contrary to what you may be thinking, I am not insulting you. At least not yet. I most likely will further down the page. But, as for this part, I honestly am concerned for you. Please, seek a professional.
With that said ... I've done what my conscience deems the right thing to do in regards to your condition.

Now, to the specifics of your reply.

You do know what a 'strawman argument' is, yes? So, why do you strawman my contempt for you into disrespect for my nation, the God given rights of its constituents and the Constitution?
You are NOT the progenitor, or the sole embodiment of the purpose of free speech the founders omitted from the document. Yet here you are stating exactly that.
However, in your effort to enlighten us all of the true purpose of free speech, you would feverishly deny others the freedom to express their opinions and observations, with accusations of being an NWO infiltrator no less, if they oppose your 'learned' view.
YOU obviously do NOT understand the true intent of free speech, sir.
It must work for EVERYONE. Yes, even for those who speak in opposition, or it does not work at all.
Chew on that a bit.
THAT is the intent they wished to describe as a God given right. The very right you wish to strip from me, as evidenced above.

I must again point out your erroneous assumptions of what I believe, or do not, in reference to the Constitution.

Basically you are saying no to alter or abolish, our first right, and you are saying the status quo of media misinfo, and manipulation is okay.

I'm saying no to YOUR attempt to alter the Constitution. And, even if you were successful in your expanded description of free speech or any other rights we claim at birth, it would not make a single bit of difference to anyone. It would not change a thing. Save one; to feed the plumes of an aspiring ... what? Politician? Author? Egocentric?

To be opposed to you, sir, is NOT an attack on freedom, or the Constitution, or our national interest, or any other skirt you would hide behind while claiming to protect it.
No Sir. A real defender of freedom would not invent cause to accuse another falsely and without merit.
You will retract those words at once and with genuine apology or you will stand as a repugnant reminder of the very thing we're fighting against. Those who would force what they deem is best for 'the greater good', no matter how well intended, upon us.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Cutting through all the verbiage,

I would like to see a political cartoon that shows a man standing over the corpse of a Congressman (or two), with a smoking gun in one hand, and a copy of the Constitution in the other, saying into a loudspeaker, "Can you hear me now?"

The exercise of our second amendment is the only tool left when government repeatedly does not stay within its constitutional limits.

Just like the War for Independence was the only option left when the king of England and Parliament constantly refused to listen to the colonists' cries for them to follow their own laws.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

If the proportions of the problem were known

and they can't be, because free speech has been abridged so long; we could be the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts". (Lincoln 1859)

This is the peoples strategy using the instinctual agreements possible which also happen to be constitutional intent:-)

It is very likely the scenario you suggest is our only tool, is actually what the infiltration of the government wants to see promoted. Because it won't fly, and what will fly is ignored in the noise of saber rattling.

Please read the threads linked in the OP and try to realize what I'm proposing. It appears too simple for some people, but notice there is lots of unaccountability. I think you'll get it.

BTW, for the record, I believe that the 2nd includes military weapons IF there is a threat of any kind. And yes, DHS has shown they are arming against us because there has been no terrorism. See my thread for what works now and every day until 3/4 of the states start proposing and ratifying amendments. Do this because I noticed no congressmen were shot today:-)

However, the issue of non existent mental health care, a symptom of maintaining conditions in society where the ultimate forms of secrecy are possible, means we are going to have to evolve some before this aspect of the 2nd will make sense to America generally.

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 understand what you are getting at,

It just appeared by their comments that not many people were reading your lengthy expose/, so I thought I would attract attention (bump) to your post by adding a little bit of truth in comedy.

The only thing I disagree with is the campaign finance reform amendment idea. While I understand your intent, I believe in the freedom of the people to donate whatever amount they want to whomever and whatever they want. If what they want is evil, well, that's what they deserve.

As John Quincy Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

But, one must remember that the definition of religion in those days was: The duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it.

So as long parents teach honesty and integrity (toward God and toward each other), our nation will flourish. To the degree we stray from that, to the same degree we will descend into slavery.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

People's contributions yes, but corporations no

corporations are not people and they have had the rights of people for over 100 years which is why America has lost it's moral fabric. Media corporations conspired to corrupt generation after generation.

It goes further:
Media has covertly used semiotics, the study of symbols to teach immoral ways, and self indulgence with immersion in image rather than wholesome substance benefitting future generations. The FCC was almost completely in responsive to religious organizations when TV got big.
Not only was morality attacked, our conceptual basis of language was covertly modified by using TV as a babysitter while language using cognitive distortions was slowly made quasi normal in daily use,

The posters here that are attempting all or nothing thinking, generalizing, minimizing and emotional reasoning are a big part of the problem. They do not know they are using sabotaged terms. Except for the cognitive infiltrators, they specialize in such terms and you will see them supporting such conceptual terms, one another for sure, while they are unaccountable to allowing any clarification.

This thread has dual purposes because the cognitive infiltrators will always oppose Article V and any change to our contract that improves the function of rights.

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?

Isn't that why

our names are spelled in capital letters when voting because we are corporations? Isn't that why you sign your name with a "by" so and so, and not just your name?

If I was an attorney, I would look into the numbers of people who sign their names to establish a suit for fraud.. people are signing their names as people because they do not understand that America went corproate, because they do not know, and to me.. that is the crime.

Yes, the "Nom De Guerre" is a real legal technicality

and there are other things. The government style manual provides some interesting facts about the meanings of punctuation, capitalization, abbreviation and addressing official hierarchy.

A friend who studied under David Wynn Miller wrote a "no contract pleading" which he used successfully in traffic court instead of guilty or not guilty. Plus he had gold and silver. The CHP who ticketed him had none and my friend asked the judge "If he was going to let a vagrant write him a ticket":-) Robert Babtista, RIP, great mind.
The judge said "Well I guess that makes me a vagrant too". Robert said nothing. He lost, appealed, missed the court date, defaulted. Then, about 90 days later they sent him his bail back and the appeal fee with an order dismissing the case. I saw a photocopy of the check from the San Luis Obispo CA court.

The recordings of the proceedings probably made risk management seriously consider that they were getting set up to get sued, and lose.

There are legal tricks. But what I'm doing is not about legalistic aspects. You know that.

It's simply about the principles that comprise constitutional intent, from the root up for the purposes of making democratic unity so Article V can be properly conducted. If we agree in mass; and we can do this while we are doing all the other things we want or need to do politically; we WILL become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" at some point when 3/4 of the states start convening delegates in their states to propose and ratify amendments.

Recent events such as citizens united have convinced me that congress is NOT going to uphold the constitution. They won't even discuss it. This is the basis of a complaint to the AG. He passed it on to the DOJ. They'll do nothing. It is a formality.

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

Congress has never even counted the applications for Article V, which in itself is a grievous offense of law, their oath and the constitution. There is a letter to the clerk of congress requesting the clerk tally all the state applications for amendment and article V.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2013/04/30/congress-ne...

These are very real steps demonstrating that government has no intention of being constitutional. A pattern and practice of usurpation is being established. Later, these technical requisites will matter.

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?

Great story about Robert Babtista!

Reminds me of Peter Camejo.. when he was drafted to go to Nam he read his cotracts, which one had him signing a paper saying the MIC was not responsible for any injury or his death.. He refused to sign that paper, and after harrassing him, they took him to the commander and they had a discussion and Peter was dismissed from the draft.

Peter Camejo RIP

I agree with your assessment and findings, it's your solution, because to me, from my seat, and at the conventions, and seeing the changes (and the ones behind the scenes) I really believe that you get liberty constitutional minded people who are not going to take advantage of the opportunities, which I think that is the hardest part being politics as a business, and the more you know, the more lucrative it can be.. so many behind the scenes earn hundreds of thousands, if not millions and tens of million from campaigns and navigating through this transition to global government..

I believe the key is to uphold the constitution while we still can, which as long as the population believes we are operating under the constitution reather than UN treaties and agendas.. I think we can pull it off, especially with someone like Rand Paul standing up and speaking reasonably.

Article V would be up to us.. and as I said, the hardest part.. when you are fighting for something is when you have acheived the success of your opponate and to remember where you came from.. which is why Article V is forgotton.. least we forget executive orders.

Your friend Peter was too constitutional

for an unlawful military authority. Iif soldiers loved the constitution more than they feared command, constitutional civil goverment could be restored much sooner.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.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?