Wow. It seems like they are all following the same script - left, right, and in between.
OK, I'm slow. :( I reread the title of the video and did an internet search. I understand now. Thanks for the enlightening video.
News is criticized as fake by the White House, the press argues back.
Social media runs stories, gets criticized by the press.
Hello...... that's FREE SPEECH, it's what we're SUPPOSED to do.
Couple of Ran-dumb Thoughts:
Sinclair <= Sincere
The SinHere = "or the missing the Mark", which is what the original meaning of Sin was is what Free Speech is supposed to allow for.
In Hindsight, the FIRST Amendment must've been a Mother (Founding) Father to write, in spite of (or despite of) all the arguments that seemed to be profound.
The SECOND Amendment, was intended to keep all those FIRST AMEN-d-ment A-Holes in check, because (well) it gave Check-mate power to some other Mother (Founding) Powers that wanted to include a Bullet in a talking point.
But I Digress....
This leads us to the disimenation of this particular AMENDMENT.com, which was CREATED well after a Bicentennial timeframe. A Timeframe when facts were often deemed wrong and much of the nations could just (sing along) and go along and "justify" that If "Just if I" my inner cry were heard, I'd be happy with this new Ab-normal Sh$t.
Just if I .... would let this energy flow .... let this energy go ... let this inner-gy fly, the founding fathers could rest in the unrest that they helped to address.
Then we wouldn't need any Amendments anymore.
Can I Get an AMEN-d. to that
Alright. Ain't gonna lie.
One thing I loved (and hated) about this site, is you couldn't edit your typos.
The painful process of giving birth to a post (the ROI of Why oh Why) should I correct that thing, kept the banter to a minimum.
but when I'm trying to put my John Hancock on what could be a final profound sendoff and I read it back and I sound like a proverbial Jerk-ove, I'm like Can I get an Edit, Instead of an Amend?
Plastered with ads for Viagra and Cialis or by imposing a paywall, any website will allow readers to register with Disqus and then edit comments.
I'm pretty much fond of my late Van Hallen Belt typo :D :D
Well that is just Disqus-ting.
LOL x 2 (for each "medication")
Hi Patrick I was just wondering if politics in the states have changed for better or worse as a result of Trump and even after he leaves office
Better or worse are defined by the eyeglasses through which they're filtered. The calls for "unity" and "togetherness" are, filtered through MY eyeglasses, regressive and potentially dangerous if allowed to propagate. That won't happen (dangerous propagation) because Americans are generally and overall, too skeptical of mass trends; going your own way is the default value for the majority.
The president of the USA has rattled the cages of the established political class, challenging its influence, power and ability to profit at the expense of the constituency. Many people consistently say they dislike his style, tone and "rhetoric" without seeming to notice he was elected. Essentially the calls for the president to change his ways are a long way of saying, Americans were mistaken. The same things were said consistently when the last president took office and they're common after every election. The people are never mistaken in a free election; that's the essence of democracy.
The media and press have taken the other side, and because they get paid to generate talk and controversy, they are. There is a hive mentality operating with many news and opinion writers, make no mistake.
Compare this with Canada, standing firm in the face of illegal aliens attempting to "flee" the USA where, according to US laws they should not be in the first place. More than a handful have entered Canada and been deported. The Prime Minister even asked a Member of the Canadian Parliament to visit California and explain why trying to enter Canada without authorization was a bad idea, and that attempts to claim political asylum would not work; violating US federal laws is one of the worst ways to gain asylum in Canada - and vice versa - more so because there is no essentially hostile, dangerous environment in the USA which might justify political asylum granted by Canada. Are there across the board calls in, for example the CBC, to set aside Canadian immigration rules and just allow people with no permission to be in the USA to enter and stay in Canada without permission either? Quite the opposite, and this is from a nation where legal immigration has always been encouraged.
I don't mean to set off a debate about illegal presence in one country or the other, but rather use this as one of several points chosen to make politics in the USA appear much more divided than things really are.
The above video is an example of attempts to brainwash people. Free speech, a free press and free expression will correct shoddy news reporting, which is precisely what put yellow journalism in check a century ago.
Reporters and editors whining about the president's criticism of their trade, complaining they're being threatened, are demonstrating through their protests that the precise opposite is true. If it really were happening, the opposition would not feel free to launch criticism. To my untrained eye, the press is inspired in this endeavor, not restrained, exactly as a free press should be able to do. Political news in and coming from the USA would read like Pravda if there really were threats against media. Facebook and also Google I think, were called to explain themselves before the US Congress. Are they now being restrained, throttle or threatened? The tone of the hearing seemed to me, to be about making sure these media companies remain free, unbiased and impartial.
This energetic to & fro is just what's supposed to happen, even if somebody gets butt hurt once in a while. Where true liberty reigns, that happens once in a while. Being sensitive, touchy and easily offended are a choice; outside of personal attacks and insults, all's fair in love, war and politics. All three tend to be contact sports.
Political parties want power, the reason they exist. Traditionally legislative power shifts, sometimes abruptly, after the first two years of a new president. It just did once again, but not nearly as much as it had after two years of Reagan, Bush or Obama. Not only was the Democrat gain in the House of Representatives a good deal smaller than typically occurs, it was counterbalanced by gains in the Senate. The opposition knew there was very likely a shift, so they increased the pressure, reflected in the talk of political division you might be hearing.
@Patrick lol I was reading your response Patrick for some reason I was reading the words with Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump and I remember vaguely your post from a few yrs ago about how things were changing with his election thanks Patrick
Hi Patrick ... I want to address your comments in the second paragraph: You're saying that since Trump was "elected", the people have no basis for righteous complaint about his behavior.
He was "elected" under a flawed and undemocratic system which occasionally permits losers to win office with a minority of the popular vote. So, let's admit that "Americans were mistaken," but not in the majority. And he has never been a majority president. The recent election proved that, with the majority voting against him for two federal elections in a row.
We seem to be a new timeline, one in which Trump has lost the House, and this was unexpected. Can TC give us a few clues as to what they can see right now about our country's future, if different from that projected before?
@ Cooper - I'm not saying that AT ALL. Of course there exists the right to criticize the president, a right which is exercised vigorously, something I am happy to see. I do not like politicians in general and I am happy to see the press go after them. I'm waiting for Trump to turn into one, by the way.
The press does not seem to be doing a good job with returned criticism. I don't recall a president (the first I remember was President Nixon) who shot back as fast and hard as President Trump, whose opponents are seizing on this. Fine, the give & take are GOOD, that's what free speech and a free press represent. My personal opinion? The press seems naïve and a little spoiled; as if they expect the White House to be nice no matter what they say or do. Will this matter to enough voters? 103 weeks from now, we'll see. The Committee has said Trump will be re-elected.
The problem I see in much of the criticism is, it comes across as if President Trump was imposed upon the country against the will of the people, as if he didn't get elected through the same system used for every US president since the 18th century, as if there was little and ineffective competition. Trump prevailed over a good dozen Republicans and then a formidable Democrat adversary. The debate was energized, to say the least.
The "popular" vote has never been the method by which a US president gets elected. If enough voters believe the Electoral College is a flawed system, it can be changed.
I will beg to differ about Americans being mistaken; there is no such thing as a flawed candidate elected by the people, under the system used for every candidate since the founding of the USA. The people are never mistaken when leaders are chosen democratically. We get who we want. Many people also vehemently protested President Obama's election and resisted him like a disease. We wanted him, too. TWICE.
If there's disappointment with progress achieved by or under a presidential administration, it's why there's another election and term limits. (which I believe should operate for ALL elected officials everywhere.)
The loss of control a chamber of Congress, sometimes during a new president's first mid-term elections, has been happening for more than a century. Political scientists here, please correct me if the pattern has existed longer.
Clues about the country's future? A very broad question, answers The Committee; can you narrow it down to a certain area?
Cooper, the electoral college was put in place to prevent more populous places in the country having an undue influence over the rest of the country.
In that sense, the electoral college worked just as it was supposed to.
The people who live on the coasts are enjoying a very different economic reality than those in between since NAFTA passed. Why is it fair that because there are more of them that their needs should prevail?
Having an electoral college means you have to take ALL of the voter's best interests in consideration. The democrats forgot all about the working class, so I'm not sorry to see the working class showing their alienation by their votes.
If we were allowing as many white collar workers into the country as blue collar workers (in the form of illegal aliens), the outcry among coastal city dwellers would be loud once they had to compete for less and less money.
There is a complete disconnect about what the rest of the country is going through, and much resistance on the Left to admitting they abandoned the interests of blue collar workers. I consistently see people on the Left insisting that Trump was elected because of racism, rather than economic stress. I can't figure out how they explain a Black president being elected not once, but twice, with all that "racism".
"The people are never mistaken in a free election; that's the essence of democracy"
Wasn't one A. Hitler democratically elected in Germany? Who needs leadership, and at what cost? Aren't we all brainwashed?
@scott2, define "better" and "worse" 😜
@Santanu 😂 challenge accepted
Better is when politicians get stuff done in a respectable manner that benefits everyone. Better is when politicians like the great John McCain aren't afraid to work together for the common good instead of what's in the best interest of your party. Better is when politicians remember a expression I believe from the late John Kennedy we should never negotiate out of fear but not be afraid to negotiate words of wisdom every spineless piece of crap politician that exist in this world should hear. Worse would be doing anything that contradicts everything I said above because Santanu and to all friends on here the day we decide as a civilization to treat all people better than we will all be much better off
@ Scott: Who gets to decide what is respectable? Not everybody has the same preference for what that should be.
What's best for a political party IS the common good. What is that, really? Elections say a lot.
We HAVE decided to treat people better, as a human civilization, but instead of focusing on progress, we emphasize the negative constantly. Perfection is not achievable.
This concerning your comment regarding our Electoral College and the system being undemocratic. I understand how you feel. I too used to feel the same way. However, when I learned WHY this system was chosen, so as to give equal voice to both the urban and rural voters, I changed my mind. I get where you're coming from, but I suggest that you look into the arguments which were used to implement this system. I believe that they are still fair and still apply. I had never considered the true reason for electing leaders this way. Just something you might consider.
@Patrick respectable would be no name calling or insulting people regardless of the situation I don't know if Trump is actually doing any good with regards to the name calling and insulting part or if he's just a symptom of the culture we live in
Free elections sounds great but if elections include vote tampering as seems to have occurred in Arizona and Florida and Georgia then “free” isn’t obviously enough.
As the “free” press all parrot the same talking points and other independent voices are removed from social media platforms it seems our election process has deteriorated in my state of Arizona.
Yes, the press shows their right to free speech even if they embarrass themselves or show disrespect while doing it. (Jim Acosta of .CNN comes to mind but he’s not the only one)
We seem not to censor the “free press” but there are plenty of voices on you tube twitter and the other platforms that have been censored demonetized or removed. That’s the aspect of free speech I’m worried about.
Have we reached the height of censorship of the individual journalist or citizen, or will there be more censorship of independent voices yet to come?
Thank you, Patrick and all the best always
Free elections means the process isn't designed or managed by candidates, their henchmen excuse me, "campaign staff") or others with an interest in victory. It doesn't mean elections are perfect, that nobody tries to cheat; that's always going to happen.
Not all of the press parrots the same talking points; there are big exceptions. If social media does a bad job, that will affect them at some point and I'd say it probably has.
Free speech is no guarantee of good or bad; consumers decide what is. No outlet or group of them holds a monopoly.
To add to Patrick's comments above, I would offer that (1) there is no solution to a problem that will serve everyone's needs or wants, (2) most of us feel that WE know what is the right thing to be done. Only problem is that the others who do not agree will feel slighted by our solution, (3) when you think about it, the only best way to represent the largest number of people fairly IS through organizations such as political parties. It's nice to talk about honoring the individual, but in so doing, who else then gets screwed in that process. Unfortunately, everyone has their own truth and your truth may not match mine. Of course, I know firmly that my truth is the best one. Even for you.
Here's a great video from Zingdad about how we have been controlled by the banking families https://youtu.be/rayQgMFBNtg
Hi there Patrick just to give an example of what makes me sad about people is that it seems like for some reason some people would rather pick up a gun and kill people but they seem unwilling or unable to just talk about what it is that is upsetting them because it seems like normal conversation is pointless compared to thinking oh I'm gonna pick up a gun and blow there head off because that seems to be the better way to solving problems sorry if I seem to be on a rant today it's rare for me but than I think I should thank you both Patrick and Santanu
John McCain? I guessed you missed all the Q posts and pictures about him and I’m not trying to “red pill” anyone but AZ and the nation have not been served well, by John Mc Cain to say the least.
I too have heard about some very negative things in John McCain's past. He may certainly have done some good, but he's also hurt people and always taken care of John, no matter who else got hurt. It's all out there for anyone who wishes to check it out.
@Linda do you mean the website qanon.pub because I just did a search and no results for him and @ronk I'm no choir boy myself but really how many among us sadly can say they are 100 percent innocent as far as never having done or said hurtful things I think what really matters is if we learned something positive and helped us grow and as far as John McCain goes I'm not saying he's perfect or did no wrong in his life but I have seen positive things that give me hope
McCain was a proponent of endless war.
Hi Patrick ... My questions about the next few years:
1) The Democrats' taking of the House establishes a secure platform for launching and protecting investigations against the president and his associates, which would not have been the case if the Republicans had been able to hold it. Will these investigations result in criminal charges being legally asserted against the president and/or his closest advisors, particularly Jared Kushner and members of Trump's cabinet?
2) Will Trump shut down the government if he does not get his way, and will that ultimately work in his favor?
3) Will the Democrats take control of the Senate in 2020, from what you can see today?
4) Will Trump get to appoint another Supreme Court justice, or even more?
5) Election tampering is seen as a huge threat to the integrity of the electoral process. Will such tampering and outside interference contribute to the outcome you have predicted, a second term for Trump?
What I have read so far is that the only tampering in the election process has been done by the Democrats. And your questions don't seem to hide your political leanings and hatred for a legally elected President.
Kyle, it's not "political leanings" or "hatred". It's FEAR. Even people close to Trump fear his unpredictability. They fear a new war, or a breakdown of the social order, as accidental consequences of his erratic behavior.If my questions seem partisan, it would be a great thing if you would pose some questions from your own worldview.
Don't kid yourself; election tampering can be committed by any side.
Says The Committee:
1. The platform is secure but dangerous, not just risky; launching an investigation without a prior cause, aimed at a target just because there is political dislike, will backfire. It has already to a degree, and this will be displayed soon. Another investigation will be detrimental if there is no good basis, and worse so if there is an impeachment. The flimsy evidence will come to light before the Senate and undermine voter confidence in Democrats.
There will be no charges against the current US president or his administration, the current investigation is speculative.
2. Only the US Congress has this authority. The president may veto a spending provision however it is Congress' duty to determine in advance what will avoid an executive veto, and present that. The responsibility lies with Congress.
4. Yes, at least one more.
5. No. There is no material tampering in the USA at the moment, meaning not nearly enough to affect a national election, and what little there is, now affects local level and state contests, hurting Republicans. This can change abruptly come another election.
Thank you, Patrick and TC.
@Linda my apologies Linda there was only one article listed which mentioned him
@RonK ... Re the Electoral College, I agree that this was a consideration of the founders, although it was more to protect the individual states, but this one has pretty much run its course. There are states with a few hundred thousand people that have 2 senators and 1 congressman. That's compared to states with 20 or 30 million, who have more congressmen, but still just 2 senators. That means my Florida vote is worth relatively less than someone's Montana vote. That ain't right, as we say sometimes.
This is free speech the way she's supposed to be...debate!
I don't think the electoral college has run its course at all, quite the opposite; it's needed more now than ever.
@ Cooper: Hillary vs The Donald would have been the same result, electoral college or popular vote, but for one state, the largest in the USA. Nobody in the Golden State wants Texas swaying an election away from the majority preference of Californians OR VICE VERSA.
2 senators from all states been the rule since LONG before there were large states. That's balanced by the House of Representatives, each member of which represents a district, not a state. The country is the United STATES of America, after all.
Your Florida vote is worth just as much as anybody else's; Montana is one House district, Florida has 27. All federal legislation must pass BOTH chambers of Congress in identical forms. Florida far outweighs Montana in the process.
Your comment seems to suggest one super legislature at the national level. That can be done; amend the US Constitution.
I'm probably exhibiting that common syndrome in which, if the election goes my way, the system is fine. If it doesn't, and it's an electoral win but a minority vote, then it's an outrage and the system is crap. In my life I have argued both sides of this, and utterly believed in my position each time.
Lol I think I'm going to go hide under a rock since I mentioned that war guy from Arizona who's name shall go unspoken 😂
Voldemort? Oooops...I mentioned it.
@Patrick lol no Patrick I think his last name is similar to a frozen pizza and maybe some other delicious frozen foods I just can't think of it 🤔😂
The better site for a search is qmap.pub and do a search for
@Linda I remember Erik saying McCain is corrupt maybe I wasn't looking too closely but maybe I just also saw what they wanted people to see
Thanks Patrick for the Beto vs. Cruz prediction. I have a question about the actor Kevin Spacey, does TC see him having a hollywood comeback or is his career dead?
The Committee says Spacey will not return to a position of popularity and frequent, well known roles as he once had.
May I please ask TC if Scotland will become independent from the UK
"Eventually" they say. I am being given a gentle smile regarding timing, obviously of great importance.
The only fitting ending to Americas current political circus, is surely that The Donald calls a meeting on the w h lawn then stands there and peels off his face a la Alien to Arnie, and just be finally done with it all ! ! 😉😉
Current political circus? If two centuries qualify as current, you're right. Don't be disrespectful to the press, they like clowning around as much as their subjects.
Very little would surprise any of us here!
Will the new Acting Attorney General investigate The Clinton Foundation?
Says The Committee:
Unlikely. Rumors of another Clinton campaign for office are intentionally launched in part to ensure such investigation would appear to be political retribution based upon weak facts.
The current president of the USA knows attention given to legal pursuit of his former rival would be an unproductive distraction.
Dear Patrick. Apologies in advance if you have already answered these questions.
1. Is Q a LARP or is it a military operation with staff working closely with Trump?
2. Are the 60,000+ sealed indictments real or fake as they pertain to famous politicians, bankers, CEOs, celebrities, etc.?
3. What other major events besides peace in NK do you predict for this current timeline as a result of the Trump administration?
Blessings and thank you.
I don't answer the questions, The Committee does. These have not been asked.
1. A character actor, unrelated to government.
2. False; there are very few sealed indictments in general which require a judge to do. Sealed indictments are temporary, eventually they must be disclosed, or the process will also require secret courts and secret punishments. Anyone capable and willing to hand out secret retribution will not bother with court procedures or general notions of public and legally fair procedure.
3. The peace to which you refer is not inside North Korea, but temporarily in effect between North Korea and the recent targets of its threats. It will flare up again, with no consequences outside North Korea.
We will allow you to enjoy events as they occur and unfold. We do not wish to rob anyone of the surprise and enjoyment offered, because advance knowledge of an event holds little, often lessening value.
There is no time, so the timeline arrival of an event is no more than part of the illusion, even as the event is real, very much so.
Enjoy the event itself, not the illusion of its occurrence along an artificial numbering sequence humans prefer.
Many humans know of and recall events on the eleventh of September in the human year of two thousand one. Would these events to be less bad or worse, if they took place the day before or after? The date is simply a label.
We shall avoid the labels for which you ask, or the nature of the events themselves. This way you shall all benefit from the surprise much more.
A character actor, unrelated to government, hmmmmm
Sure knows a lot!
My two Q’s would be: (1) is Q like the Q in Star Trek? (A multidimensional being, or an AI? That’s two and (3) will I find out who is playing the character actor part of Q before I exit this stage?
Thank you 😊
The question about Q was addressed back in the comments section of a post back on July 23, 2018. I had recommenced everyone watch the 13:09 minute you tube video entitled, “Q The Plan To Save The World”, by the aptly named you tube channel, Storm Is Upon Us,
Patrick commented, “They say, almost all of what is suggested in this video will prove true”.
I believe NK was addressed too but don’t know if I could find it right now.
Yes, I remember seeing that post, also.
Hi Patrick I was just wondering with the eventual closing of this nice little community we share does tc have any I guess sad might be the word but do they feel sad as we even though I'm sure they have enjoyed the interaction amongst us as much as anyone
"No" says The Committee, "sadness is a human emotion often arising from loss. We are happy and honored to have contributed to gain."
Oh how I enjoyed this lively back and forth interaction among our Amendment family today. It was a special treat. Everything got covered and more. Because it was a treat (in my eyes) it cannot be repeated too often or it would become 'the norm" and that wouldn't do. I've heard this saying many years ago and I repeat it to myself on occasion and it goes like this: Familiarity breeds contempt. This is part of my truth. Thank you Patrick for teaching me that disagreements are good and healthy. It is such a great learning tool if used civilly. I wish we could tweak your 'motivation factor' a bit.
A fat winning lottery ticket might do it, which would not only make the time I already give TheAmendment.net easier, it would buy more of it.
Thank you for your words, Eva.
Speaking of" The Ammendment Family" aka The Cult you have when your not having a "Cult" If this avenue of us to ing and fro ing with our wierdness should cease to be active, I would think it may be a good idea if we form a "group email" club so we can keep in touch with each other , im happy to drive that bus for now, if you are interested in that, please send me an e mail just saying yep, count me in. And i will start to compile said group. firstname.lastname@example.org Pat, i assume you will be ok with this idea ?
I think the FB group already set up is an ideal forum
Would I be OK with this idea? WHAT? As if MY permission were required?!?!?
To the contrary, what a compliment.
Hi Steve, I think your idea is wonderful...I've had so many great moments with you all, I love you all dearly and it would be great to keep in touch, I would be missing this family sooo much if we didn't...my little sunshines...Alex, I personnally don't have a Facebook account and have no intention of getting one...But if you all agree that the Facebook group is easier than Steve's email group, go for it and enjoy ! Patrick, I can't add more to what everybody has already beautifully said, you're a pure treasure, and so is TC…I was just wondering...Is TC allowed to tell us if we all know one another at home ? Obviously, our participation to this adventure together is part of a contract, but how well do we know one another? Do we have other incarnations together ? I know that you plan your contract for your life on Earth but is the other way round true ? As we are, in this human life, all scattered around the world, can we all plan to have a great reunion/party once back home, as it was mentionned quite a while ago in a post (one of our girls wanted a beautiful pink dress if I remember well!!!)? If we did plan this, would we remember we did once back home? I shall be missing you...please receive my fondest affection...Lysa.
Well, this is rich. Apparently some celebrities who live in Malibu are taking up arms to protect their properties from looters in the aftermath of the wildfire.
One of them caused a Twitter fire storm of people criticizing the use of guns, so the tweet was deleted and the apologies began.
The comments on the article are entertaining, and go something like this . . . "Oh, so Hollywood is against guns until it's their own properties at risk. Got it."
Just like the politicians surrounded by armed bodyguards.
The new 5G high-speed wireless Internet that's about to start up has inspired some big conspiracy theories. Does it pose a threat to human and animal health when fully deployed? Is there anything "nefarious" about it, or is it simply as promised, a great advancement in communications technology?
"No threat" says The Committee, "another technological step forward. Misuse could become a problem in some people who have not already chosen this path; excessive use of communication tools."
I have something to share which I think some of you will find interesting. Last night we went to a theatre in Seattle where we were treated to a special viewing of a new television series set to start January 8th on the History channel. The series is titled Project Blue Book, taking the name of the secret government project to cover up all of the UFO sightings, starting back in the 50s. These special viewings are taking place in 6 U.S. cities. The program will be100% based on actual events and covers everything that occurred on the government’s side as well as the public. The program is being directed and produced by some very well known people in Hollywood and the quality of the production showed it.
Attending the showing was a large group of the production people. The theatre was completely full. Not one vacant seat! Following the showing they had a discussion panel which was done by local chapter of the UFON network. I guess they are quite active here.
Here is the interesting thing. We were told that at this time there are several new programs and movies being put together dealing with ETs and spirituality. I mention all this because it supports my information that things are seriously starting to happen and I see this as a way to condition people not to panic if and when when some form of ET contact occurs.
If anyone is interested the website is History.com/projectbluebook.