Are There Any Here That Know What Their First Constitutional Right Is?

I'm working to create an angry mob that is VERY reasonable.

Your issue is on the list and IF we can focus on the priority of using our first right for a lawful, peaceful revolution through Article V and preparatory amendment, the abridging of free speech will end making it possible for humans here to survive and evolve.

Personally I would very much like to see major hemp production very soon for environmental reasons. The MMJ and recreational aspects are helping a lot with that.

 

That is probably quite correct if Americans are too confused, distracted and dumbed down to use their first constitutional right properly. However, things will be so bad, what you point out will hardly matter.

 

Yes, one reason, and constitutional at that, so not really a reason. More like an excuse.
I doubt a state could get a majority to decide succession today.

Americans are conditioned by media to only be able to comprehend problems and different perceptions of their causes. They really can't deal with solution at all because all forms of it require unity, and the different perceptions prohibit that.

However, humans are very social, and at some point a group could form that demonstrated functional non partisan unity based in principal. I've learned a great deal about people, Americans trying to gather support for Article V. Sadly, we really are quite sheep like. Folks really do not like to venture off and commit to things that are new.

The tendency to need leaders, icons that are recognized is really a weakness because it is very easy to just create them with money and media.

I've learned one thing about the web.

What is presented with glitz and easy to find is not functional for meaningful politics or getting away from being controlled and mislead.

Good you bring up executive orders. Most people don't realize they are basically secret laws. Lincoln got talked into implementing the first ones. Now, there are thousands of them. They are also called "emergency powers" and essentially only apply in an emergency. This is why presidents are so fond of declaring emergencies. There is a statute that ends them after 18 months of the emergency is over.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622

Of course if they are secret, what good does that do?

 

Social fears are very powerful and at the root of the flock mentality. "Flock", a term used by the church for a reason. Every time you see a nice white picket fence always freshly painted or a car always washed clean, never more than five years old, you are looking at social fears controlling behaviors.
Sure, there are reasons for those behaviors, but there are reasons to oppose war and nuclear weapons too. You rarely find people with those behaviors doing that or acting to protect vital elements from pollution and destruction even though there are much more compelling reasons for doing so.

Social fears, image fears or responsiveness are very short term considerations.

Taking a stand against a political group that ignores the constitution is unthinkable for such folks and to avoid it they will group together and put the entire notion down with a contrived, baseless reason to collectively justify rejecting it.

The next day they will stand and pledge allegiance to the flag and the nation for which it stands, completely ignoring that the nation is a republic supposedly controlled by a constitution. They will do this solemnly in a demonstration to all of those around in order to receive their approval and avoid any fear of rejection.

This behavior is drilled into the unconscious mind at childhood. When children scorn and ridicule each other in what appears as social play, it is really group conditioning that will become invisible to the adults later.

Sure, the cognitive mind can use selectivity to find a reason for the behavior to get out from under the long term responsibility, and when you bring that up, they turn and abandon reason, accountability relinquished in empty rejection of reason.

 

Hmmm, how would that work with this, where a city regulates how low pants can sag?
 
http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/1328095-florida-city-makes-illegal-wear-your-pants-too-low.html

 

 
Peoples needs are what they pay the highest price for.  In turn, if their needs are compromised, their "price" drops.
 
Which appears to me to be at the center of events like the savings and loan rip offs of the 1980's, Here is a link that looks at it comprehensively.
 
http://www.annenberg.northwestern.edu/pubs/news/news03.htm
 
Another relating to dropping peoples "price".
 
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2279

 

On one hand all of that is easily observable. On the other, which is the fear side, particularly social fears, people have unconscious responses. Those responses have them accepting things they basically know are wrong.

An example is the black helicopter fear spoof. More recently manifested as the NSA privacy invasion. People are afraid to speak the truth they know on the phone, write the truth they know on the web, or even acknowledge that truth if someone else writes it.

If there is a group that is dabbling in the truth, they feel much more empowered and safer. Of course they never had any proof there was a real risk to begin with.

Still, in that group, if one starts posting exposure of truths a couple of levels more definitive of conspiracy, all sharing stops; people observe if others will engage; if not, after a short time that truth is ignored.

 

Correct, and congress, the Supreme Court and the president, the senate are all in on it.

We need to use our right to alter or abolish now! Our first constitutional right, Article 5.

 

We were powerless, but in a false economy that is hard to see. We were dependent and that was not obvious in the fast moving false economy. Now that the economy has been sabotaged, our dependencies are painfully obvious. Our lives have become unmanageable in that scenario.

But as long as some still have a voice to share as we do, and strive to understand the laws we share across this nation, and how we can use them to gain control, how we can use the basis of them as a shared awareness of constitutional intent to unify around; that in itself will be seen and recognized by the many if we simply start sharing it.

 

The only reason the threads resemble each other at all is because most of you are of a covert group falsely presenting yourselves as Americans that care about rights and freedoms, which provides a basis for your clogging the forum with useless information for solution of the problems you pretend to complain about.

Specific to this thread:

I, in these conditions, of course cannot make a point which is accepted. None of the covert group can acknowledge any points I make because doing so is counter to their agenda. What results is that the relationships between the topics become interwoven between the threads over time, because the covert group is always trying to distract from the point of the topic.

This is for the admins reference NOT for discussion:

As far as admins allowing 911 as a topic of discussion, I find myself against it UNLESS a very logical and specific order is adhered to. A logical order according to the rules of investigation.

The knowns are; Two high performance skyscrapers went to the ground in less than 1/2 minute apiece and 2970 people were killed.

The rules of investigation:
1) What happened?
2) How did it happen?
3) who did it?

In the case of high performance skyscrapers doing what they did, the very first thing order of addressing the question of "what happened" relates to the structures. Exactly what were they? How were they engineered and constructed that such a radical thing as going from 1367 feet tall for 33 years, to a pile 40 foot high in 1/2 minute?

Once it is determined what the structures were, then "what happened" to them is a valid question.


It does not matter what caused the event. Logic dictates that an investigation MUST know the true nature of WHAT was effected, before going on to determine what happened to it, how it happened or who did it.

The official investigation jumped to conclusions, a part of the infiltrated governments plan, and the post 911 psyopsimmediately followed with absurd alternatives ad nauseum.

In 13 years of arguing for the structure I know stood, the biggest detractor was cognitive infiltration posting, "So you think it was demolished huh?", and then the false group rejecting everything after that. Using the cognitive distortion as a pivot point for rejection of reason from there on out.