-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.


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.


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.

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

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

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.


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.

My position here

I do not support the proposed amendments you advocate. I think your intentions are in the right place but any Amendment process at this point would be extremely dangerous and would result in something worse than we have now. I also do not believe your proposed amendment issues address what could be the most effective Amendments that could be proposed. Voting by ignorant people (almost everyone) I do not support at all.

The only amendment to the Constitution I wuld support is the following:
The People of the United States is defined herein as any man or woman who is not operating as a governmental capacity and is strictly construed as "the governed" referred to in the Declaration of Independence. This definition also strictly constructs that governmental personnel shall never be defined or construed as the People.

Any personnel of any governmental body within the United States or any of the Several States or localities or military therein bringing a court action against any member of the People that is not sourced directly from one or more of the People is hereby prohibited. Any governmental personnel in any branch of government that initiates or executes a court action against the People shall be punishable by death upon the accusation of any of the People.

Any court action brought by any member of the People shall be held liable for any false accusation upon counter claim by the accused and shall be heard upon the counter accusation and in parallel within any court action upon the accusation of the accused.

Requirement of Government issued identification for the free movement of the People is hereby prohibited and any government personnel demanding such identification of the People shall be punishabe by death upon guilty verdict of any jury of the People.

Any governmental personnel obstructing the process of justice by prohibiting access to a jury upon accusation of the People shall also be punishable by death.

All claims by any governmental personnel that income, wage earnings, or property reporting by the People for any purpose, including taxes, is hereby prohibited. Any governmental personnel claiming requirements of income or wage earnings or other property as required reporting shall be punishable by death.
This is where my brain is at as far as proposed Amednments. I have other suggestions for required transparency also but I do not want to stray further of your topic.

So in the end, I do not see your proposed amendments as nearly strong enough or even that relevent to protection of liberty, health or the environment nor do I think that those proposed amendments will do anything for improving anything. We need remove all governmental power that is not directly from consent of the governed and we need governmetal personnel so scared of the People that they will think twice before behaving corruptly.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

If we need to remove governmental power we need


The "Poll to Post" software is the best tool to determine if these proposed amendments are needed for unity and if they are safe. You have cited no specific danger.

I do not support the proposed amendments you advocate. I think your intentions are in the right place but any Amendment process at this point would be extremely dangerous and would result in something worse than we have now

Did you consider that citizens can only vote for politicians and a platform that limits amendment to these 3 UNTIL the nations people can confirm they know constitutional intent?

1)end the abridging of free speech
2)secure the vote
3)campaign finance reform

It would be very obviously an attack on the constitution for a congress that has refused proper amendment and enforcement of the constitution for decades. THAT would convince all Americans that serious revolution of any kind was needed.

Article V is the peaceful and lawful revolution Jefferson envisioned.

What is your proposal for gathering the informed unity in agreement for constitutional defense? So far I've seen some insightful ideas, but no plan for gaining the authority to make any change.

Mine is simple. Yours should be too.

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 1 Section 10 of the US CONST

already has inherent protections against improper campaign finance by eliminating the ability to print legal tender out of thin air. If we simply upheld this law then campaign financing would be inherently limited by the laws of nature.

We should have a revolution of any level of force necessary to force compliance of this section of our laws, but the people are ignorant and idotic fools (wussies) for the most part and do not even know this section of of the Constitution.

Specific Danger in amendment process: Stupid people do stupid things and are easily influenced by smooth talking politicians. Any amendment process by stupid people would result in stupid outcomes. If the people went into the amendment process to reform campaign financing, the result would be legitimizing the unlawful tender used now and expand the ability of the bankers to provide more financing. You don't seem to realize that they are paying an army of operatives outside of the campaigns to control nearly every aspect of our society. All of this is born of unlawful tender that is already a violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution. If we are not going to uphold the existing laws that provide protections from the very things your concerns are focused at then what good is another amendment going to do?

We the People are ignorant pussies that is the real problem.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Your points are generally correct, but rooted in

describing thd problem rather that the solution.

"Specific Danger in amendment process: Stupid people do stupid things and are easily influenced by smooth talking politicians"

and a few years of true free speech accomplished with a revision of the 1st amendment,

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and there will be very few stupid people. By the specific application of 3/4 of the states for such limits on a convention, allowing the people to know constitutional intent, and use it to defend the constitution; is very constitutional

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?

Those features of the conscious mind, which

are so linked to the ID, the unconscious mind, that they have the features you describe, and are social structures of esteem maintenance an competency. Such structures are needed in social discourse to allow the ID to quickly evaluate what is communicated.

We agree. I just realized I'm restating what you've said. I'll continue because the resolution of terms is important. Then, just how do we use the agreement I seek with this thread.

The ancient Greeks had more understanding of the unconscious mind than we do, but Socrates was able to define the path to pure reason, but the forest, where the path travelled, was obscured by the trees.

EGO is an instinctual bridge between reason, cognition and the unconscious. Both are dependent on the unconscious for long term memory and all of its synaptic dependencies.

This thread is not about that, but will have to use that feature of our minds for us to socially agree on what assures our survival.

Agreement of this type depends on individual acquiescence to social fact. That fact is that without agreement, we will have no majority, no control, wherein our survival is comprised as a species.

I state freedom of speech is actually freedom of information to the public. The agreement I propose assures that the masses have an opportunity to know truths needed in decision making, opinion forming as a society and functional democracy. I state this for the purpose of empowering our first constitutional right, Article V.

This statement is based in the premise that each person reading needs to feel as though they are enabled to protect their futures and that of their descendants. This statement is before and outside our social system, and I expect people reading to understand that the tyrants will not share this info, but will work to obscure it in any way they can.

What this means, and any reading can see how this agreement is founded in prime instincts, and that it must be extended by daily, personal actions to others, urging them to carry the understanding of how our social contract powers us IF we agree. In this thread I am demonstrating an instinctual agreement that each person can take and extend.

Part of that agreement is that our constitution must be preserved and restoration of constitutional government through Article V enacted with preparatory amendment is our only real option for survival.

If that is not true, please describe another option that starts here and feasibly proceeds to our collective control over our behaviors stopping our destruction of our world and ourselves.

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 found another way

to ensure the law is upheld and ithas absolutely nothing to do with democracy, voting or a "social contract". The solution I found is pure logic that has one single foundation maxim in law:

No law can violate any other law

When one humbles themselves to this logic and views a case in a court of law as simply seeking a non-conflicting path through the logic of law then a whole new picture emerges of how to uphold the law and maintain the protections of law. Legal law is only a subset of real law. By using this maxim I have found that Real law is ordered into an inherent logical heirarchy of law. This heirarchy flows from the whole set to its inherent subsets as follows:

Divine Law- the source of order in the universe that orders nature itself and its protections accessible to man through divine inspiration for those who live within its protections, this law is inviolate by nature

Natural Law- the laws of nature that govern nature and formed within divine law this law is inviolate for an but man lives within this according man´s own consent as to whether exist or not where man is subject to Divine Law´s order first, this law is inviolate by man

Common Law- the law for the interaction of men (men always means men and women because law is always written in the masculine form) and is formed within natural laws of men seeking peaceful remedy for disputes in their interactions with ALL violations occurring as either Breach of Peace or Breach of Duty, with all logical truths described in true non-conflicting Maxims of law; these laws are applicable by consent of men when they interact with one another and consent to peaceful remedy

Organic Law- jurisdictional understanding of Common Law that define Common Law that is either repugnant or accepted for the jursdiction´s forum for Common Law remedy. In our law this is the the DOI and is applicable to all who claim to be operating under our jurisdiction.

Constitutional Law- the Common Law contract that is applicable to all parties who claim it´s applicability and is contractually binding for all men who step into it´s created capacities and voluntarily bind themselves through there own consent of the oath.

Statutory Law- the strict construction of regulatory code codified by representatives re-presenting on behalf of the People that has applicability to all who consented to step into the Citizen capacity of the constitutional oath.

I have found that this heirarchy is logically inherent in law itself and that each discrete level of law is applied through one´s own consent with Divine Law being inviolate and Natural Law being inviolate for those who consent to continue existence in Nature.

What does this mean? It means many things but a couple of important aspects are that it is a heirarchy of logic itself with each level below divine law (the whole set) only applicable based on consent of the individual. The fact that no law can violate any other law means that if any law is violated in a super set then there will ALWAYS be violations of law in subsets. Knowing this I use this order of understanding in law in a "court" to expose the violations, confusion and utter incompetence of those claiming to be a "court" or "law enforcement". Knowing law is this heirarchy I can find the laws the men and women falsely claiming to be "courts" are violating and then proceed to formuate a series of questions that say Question 1 will get a response as fact from them where their answer is already known by me to directly conflict with their own answer to say Question 7, and their answer to Question 2 will conflict with ther answer to Question 8.

This also means that Common Law (interpreted under Organic Law understanding for a given jurisdiction) is applicable to full liability men not under a capacity bound to any contractual capacity subject to Constitutional bounds or derived Statutory regulation, i.e. Statutory code can NEVER be applied to a man and can only be applied as bounds of a capacity created in law of whichcapacity a man has voluntarily entered into through all elements in a valid contract within Common Law.

In this path of knowing REAL law I can know that these people will conflict themselves until they themselves realize their own conflicts. These conflicts attack their own ego becase now they will begin to look stupid and incompetent to their peers who are looking to them to have all the answers. Remember the ego needs to be right and needs to be smart. If they conflict themselves in their own answers in law then they will eventually realize their own incomptence and ´feel´the loss of respect from their immediate peers. This uses the aspects of Common, Organic, Constitutional, and Statutory law to peel back applicable law to Natural Law. This means in a court the entire process becomes one of getting them to prove their own claims and true and correct. What happens when they realize they cannot maintain congruency and consistency in law and they are now looking like a fool? They just want you out of their sight and the conflicts to end so that their ego can maintain its deceptions upon themselves and their peers.

Living within the protections of Divine Law means that the inspiration I receive from the divine source of order will always enable protections because I already know that there will NEVER be a valid cause of action for ANYTHING because I am already governed by real law due to the fact that I never breach peace or duty.

The beautiful part about our law is that our Organic Law, the DOI, states that just (lawful) powers of government are derived from consent of the governed. This means any court action can only be derived from an accuser who is a member of the governed and is liable for their accusation against the accused and will face the accused in a court of law (Laws of Nature permitting) with their accusations and all required elements demonstrating a valid cause of action. This means ALL government power is removed and placed directly in the hands of the governed NOT government.

How does this ensure liberty in context of tyrannical nightmare machine we face? The Law of Nature TIME. If We the People are aware and clear of how law actually works then we can simply live free and they will attack us and bring us into their "courts" where we can have own unique path of conflicting logical questions prepared for them and proceed to challenge jurisdiction on EVERYTHING not derived from consent of the governed. The inviolate law of nature TIME wil demonstrate its finiteness to the "court" and their tyranny will cause the "courts" not governed by real law to run out of time, clog, have a heart attack and die. We can do this right now. I have gathered emperical data from the "courts" and the temporal data from my own efforts to uphold the law and I have found that it requires less than 0.01% of the population to completely halt the criminal gang calling themselves "courts". I have also found that another byproduct is a split of support inside the "courts" between the criminal control freaks and the true believers in the our laws. This split then shows the people working inside the "courts"who are tyrants and then allies begin to come forward to assist from within the "courts" themselves.

We can even go on the offensive by targeting our questions so strategically as to have the criminals actually admit to felony and misdimeanor criminal acts on the record and then seek justice against them for their crimes by being the accuser and taking the facts to our juries which inevitable leads to other criminals in the "courts" obstructing justice which is more felonyacts on the record.

So in the end the ONLY thing we need to uphold the law. It is realy simple really.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

camapigns do not need to be financed at all?

camapigns are a business, so you are proposing to eliminate this BUSINESS, which means you are proposing that we eliminate candidates.

Do you userstand how campaigns work?

I think what he's saying

can be more simply put (if I'm wrong Mr PHREEDOM my apologies) like this:

The fact that campaigns need 'finance reform' is an indication that the Constitution is no longer in force. The reason elections cost so much is because politicians are doing so much that the Constitution does not allow and that power goes to the highest bidder.

If the government only did what it may legally do according to the Constitution hardly anyone would care about elections.

Campaign finance reform is a hopeless cause. Political power will attract money one way or another. It is Utopian, and dangerously deluded to think otherwise.

Power is corruption. The Ring can not be used for good. The wise understand this.

Once you understand that, you understand the only possible way to limit corruption.

That is correct

But it goes deeper and more clear for me here.

I will go back to the Walmart example again:

Walmart (contractually created entity aka a legal fiction/a person) has shareholders who own shares with the shareholder capacity (contractual veil for a man to fill) governed by the shareholders agreement. This shareholders agreement is the law that governs the contractual relationship of shareholders. The shareholders choose the board of directors that run the entity called Walmart. The Board of Directors appoints Executive Employees (the Executive Employee capacity/veil) to run the operations of the company and report activities of the company and those executives appoint managers (the manager employee capacity) all the way through to the janitors. Each level of capacity is governed by applicable contractual bounds of capacity defined by the internal regulations. These capacities matter in law because the executive capacity does not have the same applicable law as the manager capacity or Board of Directors capacity and so on. Walmart does not ever try to apply employee handbook rules and employee SOPs to its shareholders. That is because the organization is governed by law. They are not confused about the application of their contractual laws. It is very clear that board or executives or managers has absolutely no authority whatsoever to make rules for the shareholders.

The United States and constitutionally founded governments are essentially the same structure in law with minor differences in effect and application. The shareholders are We the People wherein the People created a legal fiction called the United States of America. Our shareholders agreement is the Constitution and We created various contractual capacities within that structure and bound scope and duty to them. The people established this entity to carry out certain services at the request of the people. The congress legislative abilities were intended to fulfill the day to day operational needs of the government and provide regulations for commerce. The legislative branch never had the lawful authority to apply its legislative application to the shareholders of We the People. It is truly insane and total confusion to think it works any other way in law. The people were already governed by the Common Law and any violation of the Common Law would automatically mean that no matter what capacity was claimed by someone the law would be violated and they would be in breach of any claimed capacity. The veil could be pierced and a man would be fully liability for their own actions (a person becomes a full liability man once one has left the bounds of a capacity) by breaching the law.

This is all very simple really. Its just that people ignored the law and lost all their defenses. Ignorance of the Law does not mean reading tens of thousands of pages of legislative code a year to maintain compliance, it means understanding how law actually works so that one can defend themselves with its logical congruency and proper application.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Well said

A certain indication that you no longer have the Rule of Law is when you have more laws than people can ever know.

The greater the number of laws the greater the moral decay, and the greater the moral decay the greater the number of laws.

You are saying our principals are worthless and not worth

agreeing upon by trying to use all or nothing thinking, generalizing and labeling.

To be accountable, start with amendment 1) within the concept of "Preparatory Amendment", not 3, please.

1)End the abridging of free speech

Americans do not know what free speech is for. It is vital to survival. We have been lulled into thinking that authority will do the right thing so allow the MSM to fail on truth and wail on sensation.

This is about Americans agreeing on constitutional intent. That is our principals if we are advocating restoration of constitutional government.

Do you advocate restoration of constitutional government? What if the public knew many truths they currently do not know? How would that change politics as usual?

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 are trying to use weird legalistic

explanation for the freedom of speech.

I'm the one saying principals are important.

First off original intent is interesting, and I agree that we've strayed far from that, and I agree we'd be better off if we returned to that.

But from a moral perspective, who cares about original intent? If the intent was evil, would that mean we have to abide evil?

Clearly not. You did not sign the Constitution. You were not a party to the deal. I can't sign a contract for you nor vice versa.

The only legitimacy the Constitution has is based in the government obeying it. Essentially you are born into a ruled by a small number of thieves, murderers, and rapists, and they say:

We aren't going to entertain any questions about why we get to rule you, but we do promise only to rule you in these restricted areas, and not steal too much, and only engage in mass murder if we follow a specific procedure, etc.

So long as they obey these promises, the Constitution has 'de facto' legitimacy, if not real legitimacy. It never was real legitimacy.

The Constitution itself is an illegal document. The Articles of the Confederation explicitly claimed to be a perpetual union.

The Constitution at least has the courtesy not to do that same thing.

Not legalistic-it is psychology, biology and common sense

This is not even as far as constitutional intent. This is what constitutional intent is formed from.

It is a sociological, biological fact, which is supported by the philosophy of natural law; that people generally need to be free to express; with significant reach when reasonably justified; in society all information so that information vital to survival is shared and understood.

The Articles of Confederation were properly preceded by the constitution, which carries adequately the primacy of the Declaration of independence of 1776.

If we relinquish the purpose of free speech in anyway, we very likely at some point, and it is near, will not be sharing what we need to survive.
Any recognition of right will be only by our capacity to apply force. So I hope you are ready to explain that to your children.

Let them decide whether they like the idea of you simply recognizing that the purpose of free speech is to share and understand information vital to survival, and helping a citizen to share this reasonably with the Tea Party, instead of exclusively continuing operating in the conceptual box the elite have created for us with party politics.
When one humbles themselves to this logic

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 way I see it

The framers of the constitution would not recognise the world we live in today or the constitution and the amendments.

Campaigns are a business. Campaign finance reform limits the amount of money wealthy individuals and corporations are able to contribute.

I don't find it utopian. I find it tedious and complicated.

I still believe it is better to be involved than to do nothing with utopian excuses.

It seems that fairness would have those contributors

contributing to a fund that is equally divided between candidates. At least that is a place to start, and it is not complicated.

I feel as if the constitution is worth any risk in this matter, whereas not making fairness, subjects the contract to compromises by special interests electing unconstitutional officials with big $.

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 volunteered for Ralph Nader because I believe in open debates and ballots.. I believe what our campaign actually did was give the establishment four opportunities to shut the door to indys because all we got was dozens of law suits in dozens of states and lost every one that was heard.

I think our problem begins with the courts. But I also believe what is happening is not an accident.. I think the constituion is being held by a string in case the global experiement doesn't work.. and it may not work.. actually, I don't think it will work..

I am involved.

I was a Ron Paul delegate. I'm in the Tea Party leadership. I'm involved in the liberty movement in general, supporting TP, Libertarian, and Constitutional Conservatives.

Because of all this, especially being a delegate, I also know firsthand the GoP is hopelessly corrupt.

I help people because they think it will do good, and they have good hearts. But I'm also educating which is my main mission.

The lesson is simple.

Politics won't save you.

Politics is the problem.

Politics is just a gun wielded from the anonymous privacy of a voting booth.

We don't need more Boromirs who think they can use the Ring for good. It can't be used for good.

We need Frodos.

Maybe we need a Harry Potter

I don't mean any disrespect to your work or experience as I once thought like you, but becoming treasurer of my committee was a wake up call because it's a TRUTH about politics I don't think many see, especially since as politics has gone from party to corporation, there are, I now see, many professional businesses involved, and I'm talking about many businesses that depend on politics as a business.. it's like the business of business.. and while there is corruption, there is also a lot of really good people who are involved because they care, just like the tea party (which is now a national caucus).

I think there is a lot of opportunism that goes on.. especially if someone doesn't know Robert's rules of order or how the business is run.. and again, I didn't know what I now know because as a treasurer, and having to know the rules, forms, when to file, where, how, it's so easy to get fined by the fppc, or sos or county, because it's not just the GOP or the parties that change rules..

Politics is not the problem, it's business, which MSM profits and many people profit.. and yes, there is corruption, and it's real easy to find yourself up the creek because just when you think your own party is corrupt, you wind up getting stung by the other. So politics is not for everyone.

We need more people who want to make a living off a liberty movement.. Jesse Benton was paid adverage wages..

If you don't understand that politics is a business.. if you are in politics because you think it's going to save you or you are going to do good.. then you don't get politics and you're not going to last. I did not know that when Ron Paul's campaign selected me as a national delegate, which I was honored, and very very sorry he lost the primary in CA, but happy he did very well in my district.

Which I like the Ron Paul Republicans in my district.. I really like them and I'm lucky to have a liberty committee and I lived writing the Constitution into the by-laws as the supreme law.. and I like the fact that we are doing parades and now gearing up for local elections.. It's very cool to go from grassroots to astroturf, from meet-up to conventions. We've come a long way.. we're ready for preibus and the silencer.. 2016 convention is going to be the best.. going to be RON PAUL rEVOLution Rand or not.

We are the future..

When business becomes more important than that

which seeks to protect life, the ideal of our constitution, humanity proceeds to extinction.

TRUTH about politics I don't think many see, especially since as politics has gone from party to corporation, there are, I now see, many professional businesses involved, and I'm talking about many businesses that depend on politics as a business

It is very likely none of those groups, will support the ideals in the confusion that party politics creates.

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?


"Seeking to protect life" is a huge business goes all the way to the MIC and DoD.

Since I'm a newbee in the GOP.. I think that the reason we see "dynasty" beit Kennedy camelot or Clintons, or Bushes.. and including the Pauls, where many in the family own businesses that are connected to politics.. it's not like there is a choice.. and Ron Paul's campaign proved that.. still it seems it's more a reflection of our "speciialized" society.. and people stay in their realm or cliques.. and another reason Ron Paul's campaign was so important, because it invited people like me who would have NEVER gone there in, and now I see. Now I see, and it's not going to change because the world sees, better than most Americans, what opportunity corporate politics brings to their tates and nations.

I think it's not about getting what groupos exist to support the ideals of liberty (though some do, such as aspects of the tea party which has gone corproate with a caucus).. but it's about creating and establishing our own, as it suits each state and community.

Freedom isn't free.. politics is about making a profit from it, one way or another.

If you understand that representation

means to simply re-present what delegate presentments are presented to the representatives then the delegate process governs the entire process not just the election. Most people don't seem to understand that a representative is bound to re-present what has been presented to them including the vote for any particular bill. If the delegates do not issue a presentment to be re-presented then a true bound representative would abstain from voting.

Representatives are only there to re-present. This is where Americans have lost their way. Their ego has deceived them as to what a representative and delegate actually is. Other men told you that a representative is the decider and this usurpation went unnoticed by people who do not understand law. Now we have a popularity contest with ignorant power hungry fools who's ego is telling them they know better. The only qualifier to tell if someone knows better is to examine their congruency of logic within real law. If one repeatedly conflicts with the law then they should be disregarded as irrelevant.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Right on!


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

No PHREEDOM.. I don't

Elections happen on alot of levels in politics, and the more people, the more expensive the campaign in general.. for example, a presidential election costs far more and requires many more people than city council seat.. or Sheriff, as some elections have nothing to do with the parties because the elected offices, such as Sheriff. You will not see a Republican or Democratic party part of that election.. many people have no idea what political party their Sheriff belongs.

Where we have lost our way (I don't believe we lost our way, I believe the Neos have worked hard for decades using the constitution to destroy the constitution and give us precidents that are tied to UN agreements. And since most Americans at this point have no idea what the nuts and bolts of representative government take.ecause it needs to be exercised (not exorcised).. we now have professional organizations running astroturf rather than organic representation.

The solution to me is to challenge the corporate structure by participating in an organic constitutional way.. as the op said, I belive, we have nothing to lose and the constitution to gain.

As it stands today, it takes signatures and money to qualify and this can come from corproations (and why campaign reform laws are so important to many who) prefer an organic representation by wee the people.. but if wee the people don't step up to do the job, it won't matter what the law is... today, if you take corporations out of politics, you would have no representation, and that is a shame, but I don't blame the corporations.. if all those who didn't want corporate government got in and did the job we wouldn't have corporate government.

"Elections happen on alot of levels in politics"

Yes and most people go to a ballot box and check the red square or blue square with no intelligent vetting or understanding of what they are actually doing.

Voting in its current form is truly insane and has absolutely NOTHING to do with upholding the law and everything to do with destroying law through arrogant ignorance of the facts. If we were to uphold the fact in law that Statutory Code has no application to the people EVER, than we would be at the very beginning of protecting the law. Protecting the law by upholding the law has absolutely nothing to do voting in its current form. When one understands real law then the blame for the destruction of the rule of law can be placed squarely where it belongs; the people's individual ignorance of real law. All of the voting, politics and amendments in the world will do nothing to cure this problem and will only deepen our problems.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Law is principal

With free speech abridged, it is very difficult to find truth to use in opinion forming.

Since it is so far abridged, and we do not know its purpose, our vote, as a principal does not exist.

Only our agreement in a social arena, upon our highest principals, which are basically constitutional intent, can manifest in a proper vote, because none dare try and change the fact of the instincts we KNOW each other has.

So we have to go back to the first laws, the first principals and agree upon them. THEN we can uphold the law together because we all know what it is.

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 completely agree

It would be great to actually uphold the law together. I feel like I have been almost completely alone in my activities to uphold the law to date.

I have seen a completely new strategy (actually the only real strategy there has ever been) that guarantees liberties protected; Consciously setting and maintaining precedent. Not through statutes or amendments but through a base fundamental understanding of liability balancing the scales of justice. I have even thought of advanced software tools for consciously wittling down our language in our handling of government and courts of law to absolute truths that are targeted for maintaining precedent on a wide and asymmetric scale. The envisioned tools also have case templates designed to collapse the lawful interaction down to discreetly targeted processes formulated by the people consciously and held to maintain. I also have further plans for these tools to have criminal investigative templates for collecting proper lawful admissible evidence and build networked intelligence dossiers of suspected criminals that can be published, shared and crowdsourced. Other ideas for this includes common law contracts, digital contracting, digital capacities and aliases, and much much more.

This is where my brain is at. We need to configure and customize the advanced technological tools available specifically geared to maximize liberty and justice in such a way as to have absolute awareness and central exposure and tracking of criminal threats operating inside of government and we need tools to enable the people to asymmetrically and consciously shape law and maintain precedent. Basically we need a self-governing app that gives we the people total information awareness of any and all threats to our liberty everywhere as an organized and useful toolset. This is where I am going and I am not waiting. If people begin to catch up great. But I am not waiting. Its too dangerous and the current system is mathematically guaranteed to fail no matter what.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Which law?

I think maybe you need to define for me "the law", natural law, admiralty law, international law, ten commandements because I don't know what law you are talking about? Election laws?

Voting in it's currant form is a business that is controlled through the irs with federal, state and county codes, forms, and laws, that incorporate individuals, parties, corporations and NGOs/ PACS.

There are those who want to remove US political system and replace it with a system that is more compatible to global government/UN.

I think on many levels our elections do work and it's a shame the fraud and corruption, but I think that is part of human life, the human experience because I don't know of any government or society that did not have it's corruption.

I am not learning about campaugn laws, codes, very interesting..

I worked on CA Proposition 215 back in 94 when it failed to make the ballot, but it passed in 1994. Nearly 20 years ago. The county I live in passed Measure G a decade ago.. medical marijuana is legal here for residents who are registered and they are protected, and that's my previous political experience (and working with Nader's campaign in several states collecting ballot access signatures).. So, for my own experience, politics worked for me.. I do not live in an area that is a police state. of a lifetime.. I wish I was younger because


All laws must be non-conflicting in there application. No law can violate any other law from Divine Law all the way to Codes and Statutes. See if you can find the non-conflicting path through the application of all law and then you will find out what exactly I am talking about here.

You said:
"medical marijuana is legal here for residents who are registered and they are protected"

What is
"medical marijuana"

Did the legal definitions provide "protections" or did they provide "consent of the governed" to make it lawful power?

Do we need another man's or fictional capacity's permission to behold and utilize nature for our own needs? Does any man or capacity have the lawful authority to make a natural plant "illegal" or "legal"? Did they ever this lawful power? Does any such lawful or legal capacity exist anywhere, if so what exactly is the capacity that claims such lawful power? Are the bounds of such a claimed legal capacity being maintained or is a man falsely claiming a capacity that the man actually stands in breach of?

215 did not "work" and does not provide any protections whatsoever. Maybe criminals started committing less crime than they were previously but that does not mean that any such application of "law" was ever valid or lawful to begin with.

As I said the confusion is total.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...


215 does WORK here where I read a report the other day from the Sheriff's office saying 50% of the county population are professional growers. The Sheriff is not arresting them, nor is the police, and the state has been told to back off and they have.. I see all kinds of evidense that marijuana is a industry here.. I'm not part of that industry and the people who I've talked to about the industry, many of them are Libertarians and moved here to do exactly what they are doing.

If that's confusion.. ok. No one here seems to be confused.

As for your "fiction", welcome to the world.

Oops, the edit period expired and I missed

something that needed fixing in the last sentence.

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 with responsibility.

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?