9/11 Videos & Clips

Discussion in '9/11' started by Captain Soviet, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,081
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

    They went further than that. The states agreed to what they they did and by the constitution after the Declaration of Independence they made "alter or abolish" OUR right. However, states citizens have to define constitutional intent then impose it on their states democratically, then the states use Article V to amend and alter the government destructive to unalienable rights or abolish it by obsoletion.

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

    If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?

    If free speech is only a right to be used by individuals for their purposes, "the people" do not have the right to alter or abolish because they are not enabled in their unity for that purpose. Alter or abolish is an empty right. Is that what the framers intended?

    Secret control enables what you say, and when people are no longer afraid of understanding how secrecy is created and maintained then the cycle will end.

    Meanwhile we have the framing documents and their prime intent.

    I only see deficiencies. One, Article V does not define preparation to assure all amendments have constitutional intent and two, the ultimate purpose of free speech is not defined as enabling the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights which starts with defining constitutional intent, our exclusive right.

    Agreed.

    It is necessary to acknowledge the infiltration of the federal government exploiting these deficiencies at the civil war. The English financiers of the union army indirectly took over at the war.

    That is exactly what is propose with our lawful and peaceful revolution.

    Chicken or egg scenario.

    Logically everyone SHOULD know about prime constitutional intent and be able to immediately agree upon its definition. Not so with 9/11.

    Because of government complicity in 9/11, it is fully guilty of destruction of unalienable rights, (you and I know that) and there are a host of other unconstitutional acts which other states citizens well know of that justify our use of our right to alter or abolish.

    However, in order to invoke the 9th amendment we need agreement upon prime constitutional intent because Article V is needed. Thusly, a clear confident answer in agreement is needed to these two inquiry which define constitutional intent.

    Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

    Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to "alter or abolish" is not a granted right, there is no such thing. Rights are not granted by anyone or any piece of paper. The right to "alter or abolish" is an unalienable right each individual is born with, just like all other rights.

    You're asking The People to first educate themselves about the US Constitution and its procedures, then amend the Constitution to alter their government using a process the US government would easily resist. Good luck with that.

    It doesn't matter what the framers intended with regard to free speech, it is what it is with or without the framers. And I understand that free speech is a tool that can and should be used to "alter or abolish" but that will never happen without education and as you say, unity.

    I see a lot more than that and I already discussed the issue of free speech. The biggest problem with the Constitution is that there is nothing meaningful in the text that creates a legitimate way to enforce the Constitution on the US government. So we have all 3 branches running amok totally disregarding the Constitution unless it's to their benefit.

    While you're right that everyone should know and understand the Constitution and how the US government violates it regularly, the sad fact is that most have no clue. Part of the reason for that is that the US government controls education and makes sure to indoctrinate all into its agenda and calls it "patriotism". And since most are clueless, 9/11 is an in your face terrorist act that can be used to educate people as to what kind of heinous murderous acts it can commit and is capable of committing and/or be complicit to. As difficult as educating The People about 9/11 is, it's still easier to do that than to educate them about the Constitution, their inherent unalienable rights, the constitutional limitations of their government and their protected rights as enumerated in the Constitution. You can get a taste of how difficult it is to educate some about 9/11 by reading posts from some of its rabid OCT defenders.
     
  3. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,081
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Please explain how you will use your right to alter or abolish this government destructive to unalienable rights as an individual.

    Actually, I'm justifiably asking only you at this moment if you agree and accept that these are our rights. Can you simply answer the inquiry?

    Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


    What I asked was how they intended we use our right to alter or abolish as codified through Article V if the enablement of adequate unity to do so WAS NOT the purpose of free speech.

    Please explain how we are to unify adequately to use our right to alter or abolish if free speech is not for that purpose.

    Your use of words works to confuse is first, unity or free speech.

    Free speech enables the unity to alter or abolish through Article V.

    Would you deem it easier and more acceptable to people to learn about their exclusive right to define prime constitutional rights than the truth of 9/11?

    Are you educated enough regarding your prime constitutional rights and the intent of the framers in defining them?

    Hmm, the confusion in the last quote indicates discussion needs to continue into logical refinement.

    I've already mentioned that by states citizens agreement we the people invoke the 9th amendment and the right to amend so the constitution does define a clear way to enforce the constitution.

    That goes too far in representing my expectations.

    All that Americans should be able to know and agree upon regarding the framing documents are the most prime rights. That right which protects all other rights and the right that enables the unity required to protect all rights.

    True, and, most in that position at this late date do not want to know.

    They don't want to know because they feel there is nothing they can do about it. The cognitive dissonance they feel causes dissociation of facts.

    Accordingly, anyone who is serious about the truth of 9/11 sets it temporarily aside in order to focus in something more familiar and less threatening such as the American peoples definition of prime constitutional intent.

    Are you starting to understand the entire picture we are faced with?

    Again, your use of the word constitution is too generalized.

    At this point ONLY the peoples most prime rights need to be shared and understood. Those are actually simple. Thirteen year old junior high school students have no problem with it, if they have seriously read the framing documents.

    All that is really needed for unity is agreement upon prime constitutional intent. And unity is most important. Do you agree with and accept these prime intents of the framers?

    Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

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


    The "rabid OCT defenders" are mostly covert agents.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only way possible as an individual, by using free speech to educate people.

    Why do you keep on asking me if I agree and accept? This is a discussion, not a binding contract. Whether I or anyone accepts what our rights are is irrelevant, they are rights whether they're accepted as such or not by anyone.

    Already answered.

    The First Amendment and Article V are not linked any more than all other points in the Constitution. In fact, some of the framers did not want a Bill of Rights at all. The framers wrote Article V for the purpose of amending the Constitution for whatever reason The People saw fit. They knew that the original Constitution could not cover every foreseeable possibility.

    Yes but that may not work in practice. An event such as 9/11 is a wake up call, the Constitution is a snoozefest for many.

    As far as I'm concerned. I'm not a scholar on the subject but I have studied the Constitution and civil rights for many years.

    There's nothing confusing about it, perhaps you're confused as to what I'm posting. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough or perhaps your understanding differs from mine.

    A "definition" is far from enough. The US government "defines" the Constitution as it sees fit, not as it reads in plain English. It does nothing to enforce the Constitution on the US government.

    Your expectations and reality are not one and the same.

    Since when? Those who are really serious about 9/11 focus on 9/11, period.

    Starting? I started understand the picture a long, long time ago.

    Not as far as I'm concerned. The Constitution is not just about Article V and the First Amendment. It isn't even about just the Constitution, one has to read the Constitution from the perspective of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, to understand the provisions within it.

    If you want simple, just explain that the primary purpose of government, any government, is to SECURE THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of The People. That is enshrined in our founding document. When a government fails to function for that purpose, it is no longer a government, it is then a rogue criminal entity. And that's what the US government has become.

    Some for sure, others not necessarily.
     
  5. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,081
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is too much selectivity and uses of cognitive distortions in your replies for you to be considered a sincere American. It amounts to evasion.

    You have ignored the fact that Americans need to use the 9th amendment. Agreement and unity upon prime rights is vital.

    Your posting is designed to confuse. And distract from this fact of law, to impair our unity and ability to alter or abolish.

    Too much ambiguity and convenient selectivity to be productive. You appear as if you are "false opposition". You pretend to oppose the OCT but will use nothing that provides solid explanation.

    Uh, yea, so agreement leading to unity can happen.

    You've lost all credibility with your pretense of confusion, omission and distortion.

    Bye.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What utter nonsense. You think because I don't share your BS you call it "cognitive distortions"? You never answered my question as to why I need to "agree and accept" your BS as if you pretend your posts are supposed to be some kind of contract.

    More BS, where in **** do you get that? I used it myself in several briefs in a federal court of law. Whether it had any impact in my lawsuit is questionable since it was never addressed by the court.

    Everything about the Declaration and the Constitution is vital not just your selected points. Getting all Americans to be educated on that score is quite another matter and just preaching it isn't going to get that done, I hate to burst your pretentious ideological bubble. In fact, your claim that everyone should focus strictly on Article V and the First Amendment is awful advice.

    I think you're caught up in your own BS.

    What utter nonsense. I don't "pretend to oppose" the OCT, it's a piece of propaganda trash designed to fool the ignorant and gullible. A reading of just about any of my posts on the subject reveals quite clearly to any intelligent reader that I don't "pretend" anything about the OCT and I've provided quite a litany of "solid explanation" as to why.

    If I "lost all credibility" to you, I haven't lost anything at all.

    This thread has nothing to do with your BS and is a distraction from 9/11, so thanks for wasting my time on your nonsense. I was under the false impression that you were discussing constitutional and civil philosophy which I don't mind discussing even though it has nothing directly to do with 9/11, my mistake. Don't let the door hit you ....
     

Share This Page