Forum Post: What Would Shamar Thomas Do?

If he knew that the only possible authority over a corrupt senate, president and congress, in violation of the constitution by denying its constitutional authority over itself, article 5, . . . for perhaps 100 years, with a supreme court trying to amend it, not their job, in order to attempt removal of article 5 so congress could ignore it?------

What if he knew that the only thing the American public needed to do was understand that they MUST invoke the law to give the HONOR to the warrior in doing what needs to be done?-----

What would Shamar Thomas do if peaceful Americans went to demonstrate at his military base and brought the proof of mass murder of Americans, all finalized as terrorism, sending him to unjust war, treason, without due process in investigation of mass murder? What if they brought the proof the unconstitutional de regulations of collusion in banking leading to the current financial ruin, the proof of citizens united already shows congress to be acting unconstitutionally by the 14th amendment, at least, giving corporations control over who will have the money to be heard in campaigns.

What if he knew that cognitive infiltration, http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ was far more widespread and historical than anyone realized disabling and dividing citizens from unifying to defend the constitution by impeding the sharing the truth of it between them.-----

What if you reminded Shamar Thomas and all the other warriors like him that Michael Ruppert accurately describes in his video, of the FIRST part of the soldiers oath, "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" (NOTE:The colon indicates the following relates to the meaning of the preceding)-------- and then informed him/them that you have proof that the very top of the chain of command that the soldiers serves their duty under oath, is proven to be unconstitutional, and has been that way for far too long. Bring law, evidence and reason. They are reminded that you as a citizen are blocked by unconstitutional powers from sharing and enlisting political defense of the constitution, free speech is abridged. Then request that the warrior(s) communicate to the base commander(s), based on these factors, that an immediate need to consult with a military lawyer(s) directly under their base commanders supervision, into the failure of the chain of command, also reporting to media the lawyers findings and monitering that the press is free (internet too) remove .com from the direct interface it illegally enjoys. YES, re institute the usenet for free public formation of opinion and sharing of information vital to defense of the constitution.---

Soldiers Oath I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

What would Shamar Thomas do? Would he realize that each and every step forward in defense of the constitution" bear(ing) true faith and allegiance to the same;" will have the blessing of each American and that when congress refused to grant every Americans first and last right, article v, the soldiers chain of, command under the constitution was broken? Would he understand that from that point on, the chain of command more directly over him was mislead at best, no just wars?

Would Shamar Thomas be willing to discuss this openly amongst his fellow soldiers? Would he fear doing so? If that were the case, how would you the citizen assist the warrior in the warriors society dealing with the perceptions of their leaders and peers as they propose the top of chain of command cannot be constitutional and a new path of defense through the citizens power over and knowledge of the constitution is shown to be the only true way to defend the law of the land? Would the warrior feel safe helping to educate Americans as to this natural law structure of our constitution, or would there be those that would find reason to criticize or ostracize American soldiers standing coherently in reason with their constitution and citizens living under it with allegiance?

Lastly, would Shamar Thomas want you to participate in considering congress "off the hook" because they did not count or interpret the counting of applications constitutionally for 100 years, and now would pretend "there have not been enough applications". Or that "direct application" mattered in light of the murder, the treason, the cointelpro, infiltration's of free speech and press abridged?

argus1@earthlink.net