If we do not know the purpose of prime Constitutional rights, and why they are prime, can we hope to restore Constitutional GOV?Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Tue, 11/19/2013 - 22:50
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
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.
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.
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.
A fully comprehensive explanation of the specifics relating to the overall strategy of this action of agreement.
The Pen http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3252014
Supportive but nbon-commital
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.