Are Basic, Natural Law Rights More Than America Can Understand And Entertain?

[ChristopherABrown']

You can vote away you own rights, but can you really vote away your children's GOD GIVEN rights -- the right to life, their right to defend themselves?

Actually, I think you can. Abortion has taken away the right to life for millions of children.

Well, I know you CAN, but the right to life is GOD GIVEN. It is immoral to strip away the rights of others. There will be HELL to pay for those who do, and I mean that literally. The person's GOD GIVEN rights still exist but an evil government will not honor them.

All people in ALL nations have these GOD GIVEN rights. But their governments refuse to honor them.

Exactly, which is why the framers wrote that we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. But the torys opposed them with gold, paying off the corrupt in the community to oppose the inclusion of philosophical doctrine that could create and maintain unity adequate to perpetually secure rights.

One of those , the most important defines the PURPOSE of fee speech in natural human, spiritual terms.
It was called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" and came from the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy".
From the practice of free speech between people, and understanding can be formed. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It was vital for the empire to stop that from being integrated into the Declaration of Independence. With it present, they could never divide and conquer. It was their gold that separated the 30% that is there, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People who were paid off opposed the inclusion of the full doctrine, and that was beginning of the empires to divide America.

We can recover IF, we can understand.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

If yes, then these definitions of right and this thread will fall off this page into oblivion.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

If no, then the creative, smart people, the true patriots, will keep this thread pinned and find many more places to share

Rights and responsibilities (i.e. REAL liberty) are terrifying to a very large cross-section of the population....They'd rather be marginally secure and kept chattel of The State than truly free.

I think that is only true because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, disabling any real effort to oppose being contained as chattel.

 

[Oddball]

If yes, then these definitions of right and this thread will fall off this page into oblivion.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

If no, then the creative, smart people, the true patriots, will keep this thread pinned and find many more places to share

Rights and responsibilities (i.e. REAL liberty) are terrifying to a very large cross-section of the population....They'd rather be marginally secure and kept chattel of The State than truly free.

I think that is only true because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, disabling any real effort to oppose being contained as chattel.

I'd say that's a by-product of maintaining the nanny state...PC came along much farther down the pike than did the New Deal and Great Society enslavement scams.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

If yes, then these definitions of right and this thread will fall off this page into oblivion.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

If no, then the creative, smart people, the true patriots, will keep this thread pinned and find many more places to share

Rights and responsibilities (i.e. REAL liberty) are terrifying to a very large cross-section of the population....They'd rather be marginally secure and kept chattel of The State than truly free.

I think that is only true because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, disabling any real effort to oppose being contained as chattel.

I'd say that's a by-product of maintaining the nanny state...PC came along much farther down the pike than did the New Deal and Great Society enslavement scams.

Nope, the other way around.

The Nanny state (label, cognitive distortion) made its space by dumbing the people so down, they needed a Nanny. When the PURPOSE of free speech was abridged, the people could no longer educate themselfves, and the state started educating the people, the people, disabling them.

Is it more PC to state something popularly recognized, or provide the whole truth?

 

[Oddball]

Nope, the other way around.

The Nanny state (label, cognitive distortion) made its space by dumbing the people so down, they needed a Naany. When the PURPOSE of free speech was abridged, the people could no longer educate itself, and the state started educating the people children for the people, disabling them.

Is it more PC to state something popularly recognized, or provide the whole truth?

They weren't dumbed down in the 1930s, they were force fed....The Nanny State is, it its core, naked and unapologetic force...The culture of PC is an outgrowth of this attitude.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

Nope, the other way around.

The Nanny state (label, cognitive distortion) made its space by dumbing the people so down, they needed a Naany. When the PURPOSE of free speech was abridged, the people could no longer educate itself, and the state started educating the people children for the people, disabling them.

Is it more PC to state something popularly recognized, or provide the whole truth?

They weren't dumbed down in the 1930s, they were force fed....The Nanny State is, it its core, naked and unapologetic force...The culture of PC is an outgrowth of this attitude.

After the act of 1871, 92% of the government action is the design of tyranny.

The cognitive distortions of; core, naked, unapologetic force, may be factual, but provide no functional understanding.

PC is a media fueled social conditioning to divide and disable understanding created by infiltrated, tyrannical government.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Please, share with us those rights which you feel are destructive and inalienable.

un-a-lien-able = cannot be taken by law.

Naturally pure air and water are such rights. Our government has colluded with corporations to commodify us in ways that have damaged such rights over time.

But the thread tests our capacity to define constitutional intent with priority so the unity possible creates a more effective majority for using the right to alter or abolish as it was created under the law of the constitution, Article V.

Our ability to communicate, to share info, define truths and unify is the purpose of free speech. It is abridged and we cannot protect unalienable rights effectively.

You're obviously not aware of the debate between Adams and Jefferson on this.

I do not think there was debate upon the PURPOSE of free speech, but that could have been removed. I'm sure that there was corespondence between Franklin and Jefferson regarding the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech", because 30% of the 10 part doctrine is in the Declaration Of Independence. Torys paid the community surrounding the framers with gold to exclude the other 70%.

Most importantly, if the peoples use of the reserved rights doctrine is properly directed to perfect the First Amendment, then the unity needed to properly control the states at Article V will be present.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

Can any consider that the 1st Amendment is deficient?

How could politics get hijacked so completely if the people could actually communicate as human society should be able to naturally?

How could unalienable rights be so widely destroyed if people could communicate as they need to protect them?

Who can believe we allow "free speech" zones?