Nullification - Constitutional Amendment

[ChristopherABrown]

If the weapon of the 2nd amendment has a purpose, does the speech of the 1st amendment?

Which is most important?

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?

Would you prefer Americans are picked off one at a time because of their guns? Or would you prefer they unify first?

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]lawful and peaceful revolution

I mean if the 1st amendment gets Americans unified, and they work together for their lawful and peaceful revolution, but it doesn't work, they are still armed AND unified.

Which do you prefer?

Which do you work for?

The 2nd amendment assures we have the first amendment due to having a defense and a sense of fear from those trying to take one or both of them away.

How did that work for LaVoy Finicum? He was not working to restore the purpose of free speech, he was working other rights and to see the government act only within the constitution.

Seems he might still be alive and succeeding if his right to have his free speech serve the purpose it was intended to by reaching 200 million Americans before he considered having the federal government deem him a threat then ambush him because he scared people with a weapon.

I wish he were still alive, so he might eventually understand how a lawful and peaceful revolution is designed to work. If oathkeepers had not banned me in 2009 as I promoted Article V and constitutional intent.

As it is grazing rights and the limits of land ownership by the federal gov is unchanged. My right to see my free speech serve its purpose is perhaps even less influential than it was two months ago because now people that speak to enforcement of the constitution can be seen as a as an armed threat. My right to bear arms could be considered lessened to as I speak for the constitution because now the Feds are more afraid of citizens having guns they may use.

Then, if what you wrote is true, why isn't the 1st amendment about the right to bear arms instead of free speech?

You could have just stuck with the format i provided and said you prefer Americans die lonely deaths rather than seeing free speech serve its purpose and enable the unity required to effectively enforce the constitution, whether it be with the force of the will of the majority or their weapons after peaceful,
lawful means fail.

Let me clarify. I'm speaking in terms of the whole populace and your speaking of a few incidents. Lavoy was murdered and he would have been treated the same way because government cops are vindicated buy criminals in power...

Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?

Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.

[freedomforall]

The 2nd amendment assures we have the first amendment due to having a defense and a sense of fear from those trying to take one or both of them away.

How did that work for LaVoy Finicum? He was not working to restore the purpose of free speech, he was working other rights and to see the government act only within the constitution.

Seems he might still be alive and succeeding if his right to have his free speech serve the purpose it was intended to by reaching 200 million Americans before he considered having the federal government deem him a threat then ambush him because he scared people with a weapon.

I wish he were still alive, so he might eventually understand how a lawful and peaceful revolution is designed to work. If oathkeepers had not banned me in 2009 as I promoted Article V and constitutional intent.

As it is grazing rights and the limits of land ownership by the federal gov is unchanged. My right to see my free speech serve its purpose is perhaps even less influential than it was two months ago because now people that speak to enforcement of the constitution can be seen as a as an armed threat. My right to bear arms could be considered lessened to as I speak for the constitution because now the Feds are more afraid of citizens having guns they may use.

Then, if what you wrote is true, why isn't the 1st amendment about the right to bear arms instead of free speech?

You could have just stuck with the format i provided and said you prefer Americans die lonely deaths rather than seeing free speech serve its purpose and enable the unity required to effectively enforce the constitution, whether it be with the force of the will of the majority or their weapons after peaceful,
lawful means fail.

Let me clarify. I'm speaking in terms of the whole populace and your speaking of a few incidents. Lavoy was murdered and he would have been treated the same way because government cops are vindicated buy criminals in power...

Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?

Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.

Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government.
Did you get expelled from Oathkeepers for expressing a view over free speech or was it for wanting to lead the charge in an all out campaign to abolish government? At least this is the impression I derived. Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." And I've already provided videos of proof like those unlawful cops in Dallas, TX.
I think the movie Rambo, First Blood is a perfect example of what renegade cops can and often do through profiling. Here is a man walking along a road and a cop comes up and gives him a ration of doo-doo and then tells him to get out of town. The only thing Rambo wanted was something to eat. Turns out practically the whole police department force are criminal in their actions. They push, prod and attack until Rambo has had enough and fights his way out of the building. Only know he's on the run. How should he have fought back, with a pea shooter?
Finicum was all about helping the ranchers keep their land and to get the Hammonds out of prison based on illegal double jeopardy. He didn't pull a gun on anyone, he didn't threaten to kill anyone, he didn't do anything to cause such a fuss, but since government claims to own the land and they want the uranium and natural gas they have been relentless in kicking ranchers off their land (same thing for the Bundy's, Feds and crooks like Harry Reid and son want to build a Chinese owned Nuclear Solar Plant on the very land the Bundy's live on)....but nobody is complaining about this type of criminal activity, no one in government at least. Are they all in bed together and justifying one another in all the evil actions they perform, or what? Finicum's death was not about free speech, it was about the right to bear arms, the right to own property and the right to pursue happiness...all God given inalienable rights. Didn't Feds make sure that his rights were taken by killing him and attempting to kill everyone in the car?
It will require a whole lot more to accomplish changing our guards for our security as described in the DOI. Fisrt the people have to want it.
Second, we have to get a whole new congress.
Third we need people in government that not only desire to, but will follow the Constitution as meant by the Founders so we don''t have these issues in the first place.
Two candidates right now I consider to be the closest in this need is Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, based on what they had to say in the last debate. However, President Benson said the Constitution will be saved, but not in Washington. He also said that it may cost us blood to get freedom and liberty back.

Here is why Lavoy did what he did and acted the way he acted for a righteous cause. Please watch, please.

TRIBUTE LaVoy Finicum / Ezra Taft Benson on Defending the Constitution

[freedomforall]

Ezra Taft Benson said:

On what basis can we morally resist tyranny?

I say to you with all the fervor of my soul that God intended men to be free. Rebellion against tyranny is a righteous cause. It is an enormous evil for any man to be enslaved to any system contrary to his own will. For that reason men, 200 years ago, pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

No nation which has kept the commandments of God has ever perished, but I say to you that once freedom is lost, only blood – human blood – will win it back.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/qu ... rebellion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ChristopherABrown]

How did that work for LaVoy Finicum? He was not working to restore the purpose of free speech, he was working other rights and to see the government act only within the constitution.

Seems he might still be alive and succeeding if his right to have his free speech serve the purpose it was intended to by reaching 200 million Americans before he considered having the federal government deem him a threat then ambush him because he scared people with a weapon.

I wish he were still alive, so he might eventually understand how a lawful and peaceful revolution is designed to work. If oathkeepers had not banned me in 2009 as I promoted Article V and constitutional intent.

As it is grazing rights and the limits of land ownership by the federal gov is unchanged. My right to see my free speech serve its purpose is perhaps even less influential than it was two months ago because now people that speak to enforcement of the constitution can be seen as an armed threat. My right to bear arms could be considered lessened to as I speak for the constitution because now the Feds are more afraid of citizens having guns they may use.

Then, if what you wrote is true, why isn't the 1st amendment about the right to bear arms instead of free speech?

You could have just stuck with the format i provided and said you prefer Americans die lonely deaths rather than seeing free speech serve its purpose and enable the unity required to effectively enforce the constitution, whether it be with the force of the will of the majority or their weapons after peaceful,
lawful means fail.

Let me clarify. I'm speaking in terms of the whole populace and your speaking of a few incidents. Lavoy was murdered and he would have been treated the same way because government cops are vindicated buy criminals in power...

Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?

Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.

Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government.
Did you get expelled from Oathkeepers for expressing a view over free speech or was it for wanting to lead the charge in an all out campaign to abolish government? At least this is the impression I derived. Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people."

What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only.

I'd guess your evasion of that clarification speaks to verifying your error.

Now this;

"Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government."

How can you substantiate that quasi accusation? Reaching and saying things? What does that mean. Again, clarification is requested.

I'm working for the solution to corrupt government and do not need redundant proof jog the corruption. No one does. People need the facts of solution to corruption and I bring that when others complain excessively distracting from presentation of solution.

Then this;

"Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." "

Yes that is what they are about, and I really wonder WHY they limit themselves as well as people using their forum for constitutional activism. On their forum I was only promoting Article V and discussion upon it. After being banned there, I really started to realize free speech has a purpose and it is abridged.

And of course I am still waiting to learn what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing with this prime 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?

[freedomforall]

Let me clarify. I'm speaking in terms of the whole populace and your speaking of a few incidents. Lavoy was murdered and he would have been treated the same way because government cops are vindicated buy criminals in power...

Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?

Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.

Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government.
Did you get expelled from Oathkeepers for expressing a view over free speech or was it for wanting to lead the charge in an all out campaign to abolish government? At least this is the impression I derived. Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people."

What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only.

I'd guess your evasion of that clarification speaks to verifying your error.

Now this;

"Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government."

How can you substantiate that quasi accusation? Reaching and saying things? What does that mean. Again, clarification is requested.

I'm working for the solution to corrupt government and do not need redundant proof jog the corruption. No one does. People need the facts of solution to corruption and I bring that when others complain excessively distracting from presentation of solution.

Then this;

"Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." "

Yes that is what they are about, and I really wonder WHY they limit themselves as well as people using their forum for constitutional activism. On their forum I was only promoting Article V and discussion upon it. After being banned there, I really started to realize free speech has a purpose and it is abridged.

And of course I am still waiting to learn what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing with this prime 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?

And if I can keep you guessing and waiting then I am accomplishing my goal. Having said this, you needn't resort to putting words in my mouth and then claim I said them. I am plenty capable of speaking for myself without an interpreter, thank you.
I don't think your freedom of speech has been hampered at all, evidenced by some of the things you say to me, making unfounded claims and putting words in my mouth for your own justification. I've played this same game with other posters in the past. When I have something to offer, you'll know it. Okay? Prodding and probing will not make you any points.

[ChristopherABrown]

Please clarify. Are you saying Finicum would have been murdered for speaking what he did if he carried no gun and made no indication he would use one in his defense from unlawful (sic) law enforcement?

Seems to me you advocate people should be afraid to speak their mind about the government. Wow.

Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government.
Did you get expelled from Oathkeepers for expressing a view over free speech or was it for wanting to lead the charge in an all out campaign to abolish government? At least this is the impression I derived. Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people."

What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only.

I'd guess your evasion of that clarification speaks to verifying your error.

Now this;

"Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government."

How can you substantiate that quasi accusation? Reaching and saying things? What does that mean. Again, clarification is requested.

I'm working for the solution to corrupt government and do not need redundant proof jog the corruption. No one does. People need the facts of solution to corruption and I bring that when others complain excessively distracting from presentation of solution.

Then this;

"Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." "

Yes that is what they are about, and I really wonder WHY they limit themselves as well as people using their forum for constitutional activism. On their forum I was only promoting Article V and discussion upon it. After being banned there, I really started to realize free speech has a purpose and it is abridged.

And of course I am still waiting to learn what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing with this prime 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?

And if I can keep you guessing and waiting then I am accomplishing my goal. Having said this, you needn't resort to putting words in my mouth and then claim I said them. I am plenty capable of speaking for myself without an interpreter, thank you.
I don't think your freedom of speech has been hampered at all, evidenced by some of the things you say to me, making unfounded claims and putting words in my mouth for your own justification. I've played this same game with other posters in the past. When I have something to offer, you'll know it. Okay? Prodding and probing will not make you any points.

Can you be specific? Where do I "put words in your mouth"? And if you refuse to answer, after a few times back and forth, those actions speak louder than words.

So you have no answer to this 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?

And, is it true you have no reason you will share for refusing to agree and accept those prime constitutional intents?

AGAIN:
"What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only."

I am not looking for "points", I am looking for accountability.

[freedomforall]

Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government.
Did you get expelled from Oathkeepers for expressing a view over free speech or was it for wanting to lead the charge in an all out campaign to abolish government? At least this is the impression I derived. Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people."

What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only.

I'd guess your evasion of that clarification speaks to verifying your error.

Now this;

"Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government."

How can you substantiate that quasi accusation? Reaching and saying things? What does that mean. Again, clarification is requested.

I'm working for the solution to corrupt government and do not need redundant proof jog the corruption. No one does. People need the facts of solution to corruption and I bring that when others complain excessively distracting from presentation of solution.

Then this;

"Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." "

Yes that is what they are about, and I really wonder WHY they limit themselves as well as people using their forum for constitutional activism. On their forum I was only promoting Article V and discussion upon it. After being banned there, I really started to realize free speech has a purpose and it is abridged.

And of course I am still waiting to learn what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing with this prime 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?

And if I can keep you guessing and waiting then I am accomplishing my goal. Having said this, you needn't resort to putting words in my mouth and then claim I said them. I am plenty capable of speaking for myself without an interpreter, thank you.
I don't think your freedom of speech has been hampered at all, evidenced by some of the things you say to me, making unfounded claims and putting words in my mouth for your own justification. I've played this same game with other posters in the past. When I have something to offer, you'll know it. Okay? Prodding and probing will not make you any points.

Can you be specific? Where do I "put words in your mouth"? And if you refuse to answer, after a few times back and forth, those actions speak louder than words.

So you have no answer to this 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?

And, is it true you have no reason you will share for refusing to agree and accept those prime constitutional intents?

AGAIN:
"What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only."

I am not looking for "points", I am looking for accountability.

I'm looking for accountability in having you quit prodding and poking. Do you understand the concept? If you want accountability, start with yourself and give me the respect of knocking off with your continued nagging.
I don't need justification by you to make any claims I deem as important, nor do I have to answer to you for anything. This should fill the requirement of clarification you so needed.
I asked you for your credentials, not to offend you but out of curiosity, as to why you seem to be so authoritative in your assertions. And you responded with a response that caused me to have a red flag handy.

[ChristopherABrown]

What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only.

I'd guess your evasion of that clarification speaks to verifying your error.

Now this;

"Seems to me you're just reaching and saying things you can prove otherwise just by reading my other posts having anything to do with socialism and crooked government."

How can you substantiate that quasi accusation? Reaching and saying things? What does that mean. Again, clarification is requested.

I'm working for the solution to corrupt government and do not need redundant proof jog the corruption. No one does. People need the facts of solution to corruption and I bring that when others complain excessively distracting from presentation of solution.

Then this;

"Maybe Oathkeepers is not about actions like that. Maybe their goal is to get Federal Agencies and state police officers to live up to their oath of office and to resist unlawful orders against "we the people." "

Yes that is what they are about, and I really wonder WHY they limit themselves as well as people using their forum for constitutional activism. On their forum I was only promoting Article V and discussion upon it. After being banned there, I really started to realize free speech has a purpose and it is abridged.

And of course I am still waiting to learn what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing with this prime 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?

And if I can keep you guessing and waiting then I am accomplishing my goal. Having said this, you needn't resort to putting words in my mouth and then claim I said them. I am plenty capable of speaking for myself without an interpreter, thank you.
I don't think your freedom of speech has been hampered at all, evidenced by some of the things you say to me, making unfounded claims and putting words in my mouth for your own justification. I've played this same game with other posters in the past. When I have something to offer, you'll know it. Okay? Prodding and probing will not make you any points.

Can you be specific? Where do I "put words in your mouth"? And if you refuse to answer, after a few times back and forth, those actions speak louder than words.

So you have no answer to this 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?

And, is it true you have no reason you will share for refusing to agree and accept those prime constitutional intents?

AGAIN:
"What I was hoping for was clarification on your previous post where you seemed to assert that Finicum would have been killed for speaking only."

I am not looking for "points", I am looking for accountability.

I'm looking for accountability in having you quit prodding and poking. Do you understand the concept? If you want accountability, start with yourself and give me the respect of knocking off with your continued nagging.
I don't need justification by you to make any claims I deem as important, nor do I have to answer to you for anything. This should fill the requirement of clarification you so needed.
I asked you for your credentials, not to offend you but out of curiosity, as to why you seem to be so authoritative in your assertions. And you responded with a response that caused me to have a red flag handy.

It is a matter of dealing with an infiltrated federal government and cointelpro operations, and of course the authority I cite is are the founding documents, and you've not shown that what I rely on there is anything else. My credentials arrive with my correct interpretations of the intent of the framers. Of course they are only socially meaningful in an informal sense, but the framing documents are there for everyone to use.

Of course we cannot use them alone, except for as I do here, as basis to test with, so if there are infiltrations that intend to disrupt, confuse, mislead, distract etc., it is our responsibility to ferret them out, expose them, and educate people as to how they are being deceived and mislead. By doing so, there is the possibility I will educate people and gain real allies that understand how sincere Americans MUST behave when faced with covert infiltration over anonymous mediums.

My credentials, again, are my correct and fundamental interpretation of the framing documents. I've spent many years doing what I'm doing right now. It is a simple education for people in what unaccountability to reason and the intentions of the framers can bring. You've not even tried to question those reasonably.

[freedomforall]

You've not even tried to question those reasonably.

To your satisfaction you mean?

[ChristopherABrown]

You've not even tried to question those reasonably.

To your satisfaction you mean?

I'm satisfied with common reason. Can you show with reason that these are NOT the definitions of prime constitutional intent the framers designed?

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?

[freedomforall]

You've not even tried to question those reasonably.

To your satisfaction you mean?

I'm satisfied with common reason. Can you show with reason that these are NOT the definitions of prime constitutional intent the framers designed?

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?

Can you prove as to why pure air is invisible?
Does the earth have gravity or does it merely suck?
Can you understand English or do I need to type slower when I ask you to quit bugging me? Now you're baiting, flaming, spamming and trolling.
Did you agree to these rules?

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially these: No Trolling, flaming, spamming, baiting.

[ChristopherABrown]

You've not even tried to question those reasonably.

To your satisfaction you mean?

I'm satisfied with common reason. Can you show with reason that these are NOT the definitions of prime constitutional intent the framers designed?

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?

Can you prove as to why pure air is invisible?
Does the earth have gravity or does it merely suck?
Can you understand English or do I need to type slower when I ask you to quit bugging me? Now you're baiting, flaming, spamming and trolling.
Did you agree to these rules?

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Especially these: No Trolling, flaming, spamming, baiting.

I know the standard forum rules well, and I have notified Brian of what I'm doing.

This is a matter of the forums integrity towards the constitution of our republic. These are trying times, challenging times. Rising to the challenge requires some testing of the forums admin as members are tested for their fidelity.

As long as I am civil and refrain from direct accusations and use reasonable tests upon you, I do not think it is a violation of the rules.

You might not like it, but eventually you may understand that it must be this way in this anonymous environment if sincere Americans are going to avoid being mislead by covert agents exploiting the nature of the forum.

Seriously, examine the documentation I have found for cognitive infiltration.


http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... ipulation/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-ne ... turf-group" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/secti ... cument.pdf

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 1?irpc=932
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.

The questions I am asking you are questions a covert agent cannot answer in the affirmative. Doing so is perfectly counter to their agenda. They cannot participate in creating functional, law based unity amongst the American people.

I've been dealing with covert agents for over 15 years, and read between the lines very well. It has taken years and years of testing theories, in depth critical thinking about what an agent can and cannot do in service to their masters to develop this technique, so if you are sincere, just go along with it and agree.

And if you do not agree, and refuse to present a reason that makes sense, well, that's not good.