Conspiracy Denial & Bad Parenting

whoever loses his life for my [truth] sake will find it." -I like that promise, is very comforting. Thanks for your post, Newman.

 

The link is there. I have no reason to lie about those flights. They exist.

For everybody but Valid boy, here is the link:
http://booking.lan.com/en_au/apps/p...015&cabina=Y&nadults=1&nchildren=0&ninfants=0

 

Number 1 is an outstanding issue, something that came to my attention about the Van Allen belt that I had given no thought about until then. Seems there are a number of conspiracy sites that question the survivability of passing through those belts. Conversely, there are a number of sites that propose to debunk the myths with various theories of limited exposure, polyethylene shielding, hardened electronics, and a trajectory that passes through the smallest part of the belts. The only problem with the converse theories are the lack of credible sources not associated in one way or the other with the principle making the claim. I would say this is an issue far from settled and does leave more than a modicum of doubt.

Number 2, of course three guys fit, in fact with the two modules, they had a luxiourious amount of space, they could have thrown a party and invited spouses.

Number 3, not true at all. Rocket fuel by it's very nature is an oxidant, carries it's own oxygen in abundance. It is very nasty stuff and takes special handling not only for it's ability to destroy many elements it comes into contact with but also very explosive as all it needs is a spark to ignite.

So you would be way off base here, but there are other aspects not mentioned that leave serious doubts. Conspiracy or not a conspiracy, both ways are at best still but theories.

 

Absolutely they exist, all one needs is a telescope and you can watch the space station as it passes overhead. And with radar pointed into space, you can track thousands and thousands of satellites.

 

Interesting way to articulate the issue. But in my humble opinion, it's not "Free Speech" that is the problem with this issue but the suppression of speech to downright lying that is the objective. It has been a part of the government move into "education", turning it into indoctrination. Many don't have the wherewithal to understand the difference and to become responsible for their own knowledge.

 

Congratulations, you have discovered the core problem and why it continues to get worse as time passes. This is an issue that the founders discovered also and tried to fix. However, the issue was sidetracked most vehemently and was the first major stroke of the fall of the republic.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt that, your statement outlines being a denier as a matter of fact, not as a skeptic but as a matter of expediency.

 

9/11 has proven the level of depravity that will be stooped to in order to advance the elite's perverse programs. Sandy Hook lifted just what could be accomplished with the mindless masses.

But the worst is yet to come. There are thoughts on both sides of the equation that a nuclear holocaust can be survived. Ever wonder just what this Russia business is all about? Not I, Putin has made it clear many times.

But conspiracies don't "just" happen, there are signs everywhere before they progress. All one needs to be is be aware of what is happening.

 

Thank you, but there are no promises, just probabilities with the most important one for me, "the truth shall set you free".

 

Is representation and evasion. This post with its link is pure hard fact.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=400392&page=3&p=1064835084#post1064835084

The first link is a stand alone disclosure of treason filed in 2010 of 38 pages.

The other 2 links prove judges are concealing treason in violation of US code.

 

Correct, and those that can use conspiracy facts need to unite behind the greater solutions invoked by the facts of a real threat.

In our case it has to do with uniting many, very different Americans behind something they all have a right to use. The ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity needed to alter or abolish government destructive to rights. We all have a right to see free speech used for that purpose.

However, that purpose cannot manifest in our society because it is so widely abridged. Upon recognizing that, we all have a right to unify in a lawful act of peaceful revolution in defense of our unalienable rights.

These two threads have details for mounting a lawful and peaceful revolution.

The second post of the first thread has a state by state process that can be combined with the information of the second thread to make "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...endment-congress-cannot-runoff-lawmaking.html

 

Sorry, a constitutional convention would be the worse problem than a likely cure. A convention would be staffed with the same crooks you are attempting to get away from. But once convened, they have the freedom do pretty much do what they will, you know like the founders did with the Articles of Confederation. And you can't tell me you have not noticed that the states are the same crook on not so grand a scale but looking to graduate.

However, the solution is simple, quit the democracy and join the republic, life is so much better here. And while your earlier post had some validity, you used the wrong avenue. Any attack on the multi-headed monster achieves the results you experienced. But a head-on attack against the actual perpetrator achieves marvelous results.

 

You probably didn't read and assumed that I propose just a convention.

No.

I propose preparatory amendment before a general convention proposing amendments. This is the only way to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent, as you indicate, that is a problem.

However, there is a group working with a new organizational limiting concept called the "Countermand Amendment". By amending with it first, Article V can be reserved for times following when Americans are more prepared to be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

This is by far the most comprehensive and common sense proposal I've ever seen. A new form of preparatory amendment which puts brakes, rails and steering on a convention. Creating a new form of control over the federal gov by states. Also it is a more conventional proposal than my form of preparation, which needs to happen anyway, but later is okay.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...endment-congress-cannot-runoff-lawmaking.html

Read it. Seventeen states are drafting applications and proposals for it already,

Now, if we don't do it, what you are afraid of is already planned by ALEC and some of its covert clones.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

No I can't, but if you had read the second post in the last thread linked above, you would realize I'm wayyyyy ahead of you with dealing with those crooks that are hanging out in state legislations. However, Americans are far too confused for that proposal.

They cannot even accept that free speech has an ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish.

The countermand amendment has a similar effect with more stealth by different means. The purpose of free speech still needs to be unabridged though, before America can actually go forward. Countermand will stop the hijacking.

Preparatory Amendment as I propose it works directly with the prime principles of the republic, but as I said, Americans are too manipulated and confused to even know those right now let alone use them.

 

Here is a table in .pdf form that can be downloaded that graphically compared the countermand amendments features and security to all other Article V proposals.

https://www.countermands.us/article-v-amendment-table.html

Very impressive and I really think it's right for our current political environment.

 

Sir are you really that naive, never mind, remembering that court case you filed I would say you are. I would suggest that you read Article V very closely, after all it's just one long sentence. First part, either Congress directly or by Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states may call a convention for proposing amendments, no limits there.

Second part, once ratified shall become valid to all intents and purposes.

And the hairy third part, ratification by either three-fourths of the State Legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths, the mode to be determined by who else Congress. And just who can congress control, why the state legislatures with all that stolen tax money they will dangle.

Beware of what you ask for, it may arrive in spades.

 

Just another group of well wishers with no clue as to reality. If you want change, stop electing clown to represent you and then that would be difficult because a representative is just that, a clone of those represented.

 

Not an attorney, tried to hire one. Defrauded. It was about saving some lives, now and later.

I get the feeling you are reading nothing and only posting with attitude.

The us district court secretly revised local court rules abrogating pro se rights established 125 years ago. Otherwise, I would have won the suit because there were no defenses.

In order to defend the county had to misrepresent the allegations to the court in a motion to dismiss. Because the rule secretly removed provided a new magistrate and judge to a case previously dismissed but refiled with new co plaintiffs, we got the same unconstitutional magistrate and judge as three previous filings I had made solo.

So maybe it is your habit to put down Americans who try to get justice while you ignore major gaucheries of courts effecting all pro se rights in a circuit courts jurisdiction as you've just done.

The limit is that all amendments must have constitutional intent, as you cite next.

You mis read and misrepresented Article V which I read very carefully about 30 years ago and hundreds of times since.

ARTICLE V​

Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

"Shall be valid" is an absolute limit, and "one or the other mode may be proposed" gives congress no authority over mode only states an option to heed congresses proposal.

Not only that but ALEC and lobbyists, for over 20 years now. And they are working for an Article V convention with puppet organizations, presenting a real threat which is proven by a video of 34 minutes where Levin says one thing to legislators and another to people like you afraid of a runaway.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

Beware of not being prepared for what you are afraid of.

I'm not afraid if a Article V, I'm afraid of American arrogance and ignorance which has them failing to discuss and agree upon what constitutional intent is. That fear is reasonable because it is our agreement upon constitutional intent which defines it making us "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts".

I have a thread explaining our first right we can actively use, the right to alter or abolish, and the purpose of our second right we can use, freedom of speech which enables the first right.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...free-speech-choosing-limits-over-purpose.html

Can you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

 

Those "well wishers" have 17 states making applications for Article V with the countermand amendment as the proposed amendment.

My hope is to see that work THEN revise the 1st amendment as part of preparatory amendment to a more comprehensive Article V convention so free speech can serve its purpose and the public can educate itself instead of relying on media controlled and collusive with infiltrated government,

No election will get anything BUT clowns until campaign finance reform
Is instituted, another needed amendment in preparation for Article V to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. The other preparation is to secure the vote by amendment meaning your proposal to vote is empty of any curative value at all because the vote is not secure.

 

Yes, I have attitude, the attitude that stops those little actors in black robes from doing anything. You think they are judges and I know they are magistrates. You allow them to act as a judge, I allow only a magistrate.

Do you know what pro se actually means? "PRO SE. For himself; in his own behalf; in person." Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968. Before the court you have just pronounced yourself either an infant or incapable of standing without representation. And as the old legal saying goes, only a fool represents one's self. But it's even worse when one hires an attorney that is a member of the other side for his representation.

If you are going to use the legal system to gain your freedom, then you had better understand how the game is played.

A motion is just that, a plea to move the court. It is your destiny to deny that motion and move the court to proceed.

Sir, it is not I that have misread nor misrepresented anything. It is right there in very plain view. When one looks at the "Commerce Clause" or the Necessary and Proper Clause" and see what has been done, it would be very naive to even think that there are controls.

I am not afraid of a runaway, I have no problem with what is there. It is the indoctrinated idiots that I have issue with. When I stop and consider the total lack of understanding of the whole concept of freedom, then what is adding a few caveats going to accomplish. It's all wishful dreaming.

When one let's a little district court run all over them and then ask that one believe there is some imaginary control of that which by it's very nature is uncontrollable, that is where I have issue.

 

Ideals yes, dreams that oppose nightmares, I think not. This is actually at the root of natural law.

Indoctrinated idiots, probably lots of them.

But you miss the point of unity around constitutional intent. Intent that the elite are not aware of but cannot deny. When some millions of indoctrinated idiots get one very important thing right and even trying to deny it looks bad, an advantage is gained.

Hmm, that "all or nothing thinking" aspect is a cognitive distortion because state legislations often have different priorities than federal judges and when citizens show up at state chambers pointing out that a prime constitutional right has been misinterpreted, and basically prove it has; it changes things.

We cannot give up onideals, and I have not seen that you have produced any functional realities as part of a plan. The ideals of prime constitutional intent are real, and they integrate well into a legal plan.

That plan is out of the partisan box while reaching for that which congress is so afraid they have intentionally ignored a primary duty, quite willfully since 1871 I'm sure. Meaning that IF enough people use his simple strategy as even a contingency, it will provide an advantage at least and very possibly a solution.

 

After reading the OP, I believe I have been in the mind of a mad man.

 

UFO's and aliens are fact - the evidence is overwhelming.

 

All skepticism of government is healthy. Governments can turn authoritarian and eventually totalitarian rather quickly, and believing our government is benevolent is shortsighted.

 

We have a test for your mind to determine its intent.

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

Or are you against our right to alter or abolish?

I ask because there are conspiracy facts that indicate we need to alter of abolish as soon as possible,

 

I think we have plenty of non conspiracy facts that indicate we need to restore the Constitution that protects our unalienable rights.

 

Very good, but alignment with an effective method or an action which determines HOW we alter or abolish is executed, and can move to do so is the true test of intent.

Unity amongst Americans that agree upon a need to restore constitutional government is the vital condition to actually effecting that. What will serve that purpose other than free speech?

If only free speech will serve that purpose, Americans need to unite behind manifesting that purpose. Through sharing facts of federal conspiracies and known acts violating unalienable rights, more and more Americans can be unified in the definition of prime constitutional intent which can then be lawfully imposed upon state leaders to alter or abolish the infiltrated federal government destructive to our vital rights.