Dynamic Threats To Constitutional Government-solution

[Christopher A. Brown]

Nah, I just hadn't even seen them previously..

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?

Nope just tyrannical and powerful enough to pull it off.

3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

Nope, talk, as in sales pitch, is often much different than the intended reality.

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Just reading the CONstitution shows they didn't and that was NEVER the intent. The theme of the entire CONstitution is POWER.


The CONstitution was never anything but a con job and a sneaky secret Federalist coup against the lawful Articles of Confederation.

At 1), You've evaded by referring to the constitution rather than the intent which was in the framers mind when the opportunity to create it was made. This agrees that the sabotage by loyalists to the king, of the framing documents, is dominant.

At 2), you say no then yes.

At 3), you attempt to replace the words of the Declaration with your interpretation of "sales pitch".

At 4), you refuse to answer and instead attempt to provide your interpretation of intent.

Basically, a logical conclusion is that you do not support that free speech have a purpose of assuring information vital to the unity needed to effect a lawful and peaceful revolution exist. Logically it is established that you have an agenda which is as yet unidentified but does not include using whatever exists to unite the people.

This behavior ignores that if the Articles of Confederation are indeed a better structure, that Americans have no lawful peaceful method of returning to them.

 

[Ronin Truth]

At 1), You've evaded by referring to the constitution rather than the intent which was in the framers mind when the opportunity to create it was made. This agrees that the sabotage by loyalists to the king, of the framing documents, is dominant.

At 2), you say no then yes.

At 3), you attempt to replace the words of the Declaration with your interpretation of "sales pitch".

At 4), you refuse to answer and instead attempt to provide your interpretation of intent.

Basically, a logical conclusion is that you do not support that free speech have a purpose of assuring information vital to the unity needed to effect a lawful and peaceful revolution exist. Logically it is established that you have an agenda which is as yet unidentified but does not include using whatever exists to unite the people.

This behavior ignores that if the Articles of Confederation are indeed a better structure, that Americans have no lawful peaceful method of returning to them.

Ya just get what you get. Don't like it? OK. <shrug>

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

'Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” ' -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President (1801-1809)

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Ya just get what you get. Don't like it? OK. <shrug>

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

'Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” ' -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd US President (1801-1809)

Notice he did not say bloody or violent revolution. Article V is a revolution of the people of the states where they independently control their states with the prime intents of the federal constitution in mind. Only the people can do that, not the federal government.

See the grand jury thread for how an Article V convention corrects the function of the 10th amendment.

Then the states reform the federal government by amendment of the constitution.

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our rights?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Notice he did not say bloody or violent revolution. Article V is a revolution of the people of the states where they independently control their states with the prime intents of the federal constitution in mind. Only the people can do that, not the federal government.

See the grand jury thread for how an Article V convention corrects the function of the 10th amendment.

Then the states reform the federal government by amendment of the constitution.

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our rights?

Nope.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our rights?

Nope.

Then you would attempt to assert that the framers did not intend for Americans to preserve unalienable rights by altering or abolishing government destructive to them.

Or, you can produce another method other than freedom of speech to enable the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to vital rights.

Which is it?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Then you would attempt to assert that the framers did not intend for Americans to preserve unalienable rights by altering or abolishing government destructive to them.

Or, you can produce another method other than freedom of speech to enable the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to vital rights.

Which is it?

My usual answer to almost all false dichotomies. Neither.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

My usual answer to almost all false dichotomies. Neither.

Ah, the quest for accountability from ronin continues.

Without filling pages with text, can you state what the framers truly intended when defining the right to alter or abolish?

Or, is your post simply more evasion?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ah, the quest for accountability from ronin continues.

Without filling pages with text, can you state what the framers truly intended when defining the right to alter or abolish?

Or, is your post simply more evasion?

No.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

No.

Then why are you failing to provide reasonable explanations and answers?

It appears you are lying to evade any reasonable accountability.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Then why are you failing to provide reasonable explanations and answers?

It appears you are lying to evade any reasonable accountability.

I really don't mind that you're wrong.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I really don't mind that you're wrong.

And you have no proof of that while I have your post history in this thread I can refer viewers to showing I am correct.

Here is where it starts in this thread.

Nah, I just hadn't even seen them previously..

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

2)Do you acknowledge that logically IF the government was destructive to the unalienable rights, that government was powerful?

Nope just tyrannical and powerful enough to pull it off.

3)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to have GREATER power than the government in order to "alter or abolish" it?

Nope, talk, as in sales pitch, is often much different than the intended reality.

4)How do you suppose the framers intended for the people to gain the power needed to alter or abolish government so powerful?

Just reading the CONstitution shows they didn't and that was NEVER the intent. The theme of the entire CONstitution is POWER.


The CONstitution was never anything but a con job and a sneaky secret Federalist coup against the lawful Articles of Confederation.

 

[Ronin Truth]

And you have no proof of that while I have your post history in this thread I can refer viewers to showing I am correct.

Here is where it starts in this thread.

You are absolutely correct, I really don't have any proof that I really don't mind that you're wrong again.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

1)Do you acknowledge that the framers intended for the people to "alter or abolish"?

Nope! That above quote is straight out of the D of I, not the CONstitution. (A whole bunch of largely different folks.)

Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Because Artlice V is the intent of alter or abolish, the intent of the framers is clear.

But without free speech serving its purpose of enabling unity, liberty cannot be secured.

But you are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

I'm glad you and others found Spooner. He is very insightful, but not comprehensive.

For example, does Spooner describe the effect of the Masonic Order upon American politics? Does he indicate competing factions within the order that unconsciously work to push the government towards or away from constitutionality?

Does Thomas Woods?

Is the below true?

You are against free speech having an ultimate purpose defending unalienable rights.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm glad you and others found Spooner. He is very insightful, but not comprehensive.

For example, does Spooner describe the effect of the Masonic Order upon American politics? Does he indicate competing factions within the order that unconsciously work to push the government towards or away from constitutionality?

Does Thomas Woods?

Is the below true?

I'm for free speech, do with it as you will, as will I.

BTW, screw the Freemasons.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?

I think I just continue to mostly rely on intelligence, skill, luck and firepower to protect myself and family. It's all worked out pretty well so far.

If I were you, I'd only follow Spooner if you like and agree with him.

Why on Earth else would you ever choose to follow him? DUH!

Neither! Yet another bogus false dichotomy rejected.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Uh, free speech is not enough. A person has to know the that there is a difference. It is not all equal. Some speech has the ultimate natural law purpose of protecting your life, your rights and freedoms, your liberty.

You believe they're free because they told you so? Uh, wake up!

Spooner never mentions them. Meaning Spooner is not comprehensive to the very human aspects; the human unconscious mind; and how it can be made to effect the subject he writes extensively upon.

Is there any reason I should follow Spooner besides his occasional, insightful phrases that are quit accurate observations of natural law?

So do you agree and accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose, or are you going to believe what they told you with regard to that too?

I think I just continue to mostly rely on intelligence, skill, luck and firepower to protect myself and family. It's all worked out pretty well so far.

If I were you, I'd only follow Spooner if you like and agree with him.

Why on Earth else would you ever choose to follow him? DUH!

Neither! Yet another bogus false dichotomy rejected.

^=evasion

 

[Ronin Truth]

^=evasion

Clueless. ^