2. The voters may choose someone who is not an elected Member of Congress to be the Speaker.

The "foolish argument" for this Amendment hasn't been well refuted based on reasons, merely the assertion that it is "foolish".

The question of whether someone is or isn't "mad" at the Speaker is irrelevant. The question is the duty of the Speaker to confront the President, as thisSspeaker has refused. Wheher someone is or isn't amicable to that inaction is also irrelevant. There must be a remdy.

Arguing, "Speaker of the House is a management position" makes the point: When the Speaker, despite a falure of management, continues to remain as Speaker, there must be a means to timely remove that Speaker for management failure. Two years seems long enough to let a Speaker test the waters.

Who says that "none" of the Speakers would have "not" been elected. Someone would have been elected Speaker. This asks us to believe that none of the "fine" Senators that were otherwise appoitned by their state legislatures would not have been there. Then let the "fine" Speakers demonstrate their competence at large, not merely within their caucus.

All the arguments against an direct election have done is merely asserted what we have; then asked that we support what isn't working. That's not an argument, but an excuse. This Amendment would deny the majority party the right to appoint a Speaker; and ensure the Speaker remains accountable to the people.

The "inherent equality" of the representatives hardly speaks to the problem of the inherent failure of the Speaker to respond to the Constitution, and legal requirement to enforce the statutes through investigations.

The People need to control the House Speaker's position. This Speaker is a symptom of inaction and capitulation which must be challenged. If the "leadership" want to claim they have "hard work to do" on behalf of constitutents, then they need to do that work, not make excuses to capitulate. Constituents require the Speaker to assert their oath, not make excuses to claim they are doing the "work of Constituents" while doing the work of an agenda.

The above has failed to adequately address the following:

- What solution should be considered to ensure timely Speaker accountability to something other than a political agenda;

- What will other options exist to ensure the Speaker timely leads an independent branch, and does not become an administrative arm of the Executive branch;

- Has not provided a compelling argument why the direct vote for the Speaker is misguided or wrong.

We need to hear something specific, compelling, and also outline a credilbe solution to the current inaction, capitulation, and complicity with war crimes.

Amending the Constitution may be difficult, but it is not impossible. This Speaker's capitulation to war crimes, and deference to an agenda of inaction on investigations have been the impossible impasses. It is with the secure support of the DNC which this Speaker's inaction has been rewarded, as opposed to confronted.

We need to hear more discussion why the solution in the Senate -- of directly electing Senators, as opposed to a state-legislature role -- should or should not be used as a model to reform the House Speakership position. Arguing a Constitutional Amendment -- as a means to discussand implement a needed reform -- "is wasted energy" hardly addresses a solution or viable alternative.

Any decision to thwart this proposal, absent a more robust solution, asks that we accept medicrity, but not entertain the possibility there is an alternative. There is always a chance someone else might develop a better solution.

- What is a solution to the inaction, capitulation, and complicity? No answer.

- Other than changing the rules in how a Speaker is forced to remain accountable with a direct election, what is another solution? No answer.

- If this is "wasted energy" to ensure the Speaker is accountable, what would you prefer be done to ensure the Speaker is timely challenged for inaction, capitulation, and complicity? No answer.

Surely, those claiming this effort to confront the United States government, and deprive the House of the discretion to do nothing about alleged Speaker incompetence, should be able to point to some evidence to justify inaction.

Yet, that's the problem: There is no evidence to justify inaction; and there's been no investigation to justify supporting this Speaker.

Perhaps the apologists for the status quo would like to argue, "We need an investigaiton to justify this Amendment." Curiously, they were closed minded to conducting an investigaiton into the President; why should anyone believe their contradiction in calling for something they said they did not need: An investigation.

The questoin isn't what is needed to change the COnstitution; but what will, other than an Amendment, ensure the Speaker remains accountable to the existing Constitution.

The argument of "we can't change the Constitution" incorrectly assumes/asserts that the existing Constitution is fine. Self-evidently, the Constitution, as it stands, is insufficient to inspire the Speaker to confront the domestic enemies of the Constitution.

This Constitution well protects the domestic enemies; and does little to ensure the domestic enemies are confronted. Then, as with the 17th Amendment, the status quo must be changed; otherwise we are impermissibly forced to continue with what rewards domestic treason: Aiding domestic enemies of the Supreme Law with inaction, no investigation, and complicity with war crimes.

Show your evidence that an investigation is required to challenge the Speaker; but that "no investigation" is required to confront this President. That argument is absurdly imbalanced.

Here is House Rule 603. This is the rule that permits State legislatures and assemblies to pass a proclamation calling on the Congress to impeach. There are also other methods to start an impeachment process using petitions.

For the purposes of the effort to challenge the Speaker, the House, and the group that is unresponsive to Geneva, let's consider House Rule 603 is analogy: It shows that someone just like you -- yes, you reading this at TPMM right now -- can start the action, but this agenda item on the local government agenda and start a discussion.

Here is a sample local proclamation effort to impeach the President. The same can be done to challenge the Speaker; and voice your support for having a "local Speaker election preference" on your local ballot.

Here and here are the DOJ OLC legal memoranda which combatant commanders, JAGs, and local national guard unit commanders must review; and discuss with your local personnel. The President and Speaker are alleged to have been complicit with war crimes; and the DOJ OLC memos, as you read through them, well discuss this risk of extradition. Your job as combatant commanders will be to review your legal obligations under your oath of office; and make an informed decision related to issues of alleged treason and support for domestic enemies of the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Supreme Law.

Arguably, the President's orders, and the Speaker's alleged complicity, are illegal. The House refuses to challenge the Speaker. The public is left with the option of changing how the Speaker is held to account.

- State AGs must be contacted to review the plan of the States Attorney Generals to confront his speaker through direct prosecutions;

- Your state legal counsel must be mobilized to review state attorney disciplinary standards, and conduct investigations gathering evidence of legal counsel alleged complicity with this Speaker/President's war crimes, and unlawful planning;

- Your state officials must acquire copies of the illegal DOJ OLC legal memoranda this President, US Attorney General, and Speaker are using to allegedly perpetuate this unlawful assault against the Geneva Conventions, FISA, and US Constitution. This must be entered into evidence in local prosecution efforts.

All combatant commanders must be encouraged to fully support lawful civilian control, investigations, and evidence preservation related to these investigations. Any effort by combatant commanders or anyone in the national guard or US active duty or reserve forces to block investigations of the Speaker, intimidate any civilian, or violate civilian protections afforded to non-combatants could be construed as a subsequent UCMJ action and enforceable through extradition to foreign war crimes tribunals. Those options remain on the table.

Watch for the following:

- Evidence destruction;
- Domestic propaganda to dissuade enforcement of FISA, Geneva;
- Efforts to use military forces to intimidate civilians discussing these issues to confront the Speaker or President;
- Illegal use of law enforcement to dissuade oversight, investigations, and accountability of the Speaker and President;
- Illegal prosecutions to thwart US civilians from conducting oversight, investigations, and prosecutions against the President, Speaker, and US government officials.

More of the same we've had since 2001. We're well prepared to confront this Speaker and President's alleged illegal use of combat forces to thwart oversight, investigations, and prosecutions; or capitulation to the same.

To those who want to thwart the above options supporting an Amendment to directly elect the Speaker, convince these 6,000 people to join you in your excuses for inaction and complicity.

You have no hope. You're going to lose.

There are some key points to this comment thread:

1. Support for a constitutional Amendment, in general, supporting direct election of the Speaker, is not isolated;

2. The House must be punished for refusing to remove the Speaker for her failure to open all the doors to an investigation, and in removing the impeachment option as a needed leverage tool against the President and Executive Branch/OVP officers;

3. To prevent this abuse of power again, the House must be forever denied the power to have any discretion in choosing leaders who thwart the rule of law; and

4. The House must be punished for remaining a corrupt organization that has appointed a Speaker who remains unresponsive to the Constitution, voting public, and the Geneva Conventions.

We've read nothing of substance that describes why the proposed Constitutional language is invalid, weak, or poor; nor any suggestions how this Constitutional Amendment should be reworded.

Nobody can argue we "need investigations" into how the Speaker is or isn't elected, but then say, "We don't need investigations" into the President. You cannot have it both ways.

If you want the President-Speaker decision on impeachable offenses/war crimes rubber stamped; you must (for the sake of consistency) rubber stamp the Amendment to challenge that rubber stamp; or reasonably explain why you are not going to rubber stamp both.

Narrowly Mischaracterizing Objectives

Let's consider this comment, which is misdirection from the discussion about the Amendment:

"Okay, I'm going to address your central point. Changing the Speaker's role to that of a national elected official would be paramount to completely changing the structure of the Congress."

It is incorrect to say that changing how the Speaker is elected would change the "structure" of Congress. It would only change how the House arrives at a decision on the Speaker. Nothing else. Other changes might be considered; but the fools game is to expand the scope of the Amendment to include many things; and invite broader attack, thereby ensuring no change in the House-Speaker decision. The misdirection fails.

The problem will be for the leadership to work with what the voters have handed them: A mixed power bag, as is the problem bewteen the Senate and House. A "harder time" to pass legislation could hardly be a concern when reviewing the rubber stamped appropriations, NSLs, Habeas destruction, or Patriot Act. This fails to address how this could occur; or why, with voter input, this outcome is contrary to the Constitution:

"Say, for example, there is a Democratic majority in the House. But the Speaker, who fundamentally* decides who chairs committees*, who sit son what committee, who does everything in the House, well he is publicly elected as a Republican." (*=Spelling corrected for clarification only)

It will be the job of the Democrats, who supposedly "control" the House by a majority of voting blocks in each district, to explain why they cannot muster national support for a single leader. The Democrats, by design, need to wake up and not be comfortable with their failure to fully assert their legal obligations. The voters must have a good reason for this (speculative) outcome:

"So despite the fact that the majority of members of the House are democrats, it is controlled by a republican. Does that make sense* to you?" (spelling corrected for clarification only)

Your hypothetical deserves a response from the Democrats and Speaker. They are not responding. That is not leadership. It doesn't make sense that the public voted for change, and end to the war in Iraq, and to conduct oversight; but we've got more House rubber stamping, and thwarted investigations. What makes sense should be what enforces the Constitution. Yet, this principle seems lost on the House, not just the Speaker. The House needs to be awoken, not left to lose its touch with other principles.

Yet, by taking impeachment off the table, the Speaker gave up her claim that she's about change. She threw the President one important piece of leverage. That's not leadership, but complicity. That decision must be memorialized with a permanent change in how the House can conduct oversight of the Speaker: It is expressly denied the power to choose. Without consequences, the option for that complicity going forward remains on the table. That is impermissible.

This is a good question, and starts with the (implicit) premise that a direct election of the Speaker might succeed:

"Next, why stop at the Speaker? Committee chairs have a lot of influence -- why not nationally elect all of them?"

Why not start with just the Speaker's position since that seems to be the problem. We don't have any problems with the Senate Majority leader blocking impeachment investigations. Or are you aware of other corruption in the Senate which is impermissibly shielded by this Constitution, as was the case in 1906, when "Treason of the Senate" was published, prompting the 17th Amendment.

When the Committee chairs are not responsive, what is a solution? You have none. That's not leadership. This implicitly argues that the solution is valid, but not broad enough:

"And why just the House -- why not the Senate Majority Leader as well?"

Thank you for your support in keeping an open mind that change must be discussed as a possibility, and might need to be broader. The problem is the Speaker and the decision not to start an investigation. If you want to add more changes, then you are implicitly arguing that the problem is wider. Thank you for your support in discussing the need for change.

The Senate is outside the House. But you raise a good point: Why not have popular input to officers on the Committees. That is an option. This implicitly is arguing that change is required; but the proposed change isn't enough:

"S/he has lots of power, too. Why is s/he let out of your national referendum?"

Thank you for your implicit support of changes in the House, but you haven't explained why you would or wouldn't support a change. You're making excuses to fear change because the needed change isn't big enough. We must take the first step. If that road leads to a new Constitution, then that is what we need to talk about; but we cannot fear change on the guise of stability, when the status quo has given us convoluted, illegal policy in defiance of the laws of war.

The officers and committee chairs are not responsive to the 2006 mandate for change. If they were, they would have removed the Speaker, and started in 2007 an impeachment investigation. That didn't happen because, in Turley's word, they are in "collusion". Why not have direct elections to ensure they do remain responsive to that mandate, and not loyal to a lesser, illegal agenda? We have no answer here.

The decision to not enforce the laws of war, FISA, or Constitution is not a decision we should respect. That inaction must e challenged. One method is to deprive the House of power it has recklessly used, abused, or not fully used:

"Representative government allows our elected officials to make certain decisions."

Do not preach about the "idea" of a Republic when that Republic actively protects enemies of the Constitution. Representative government requires an enforcement mechanism -- investigations -- which this Speaker has thwarted.

It's circular to block an impeachment investigation; then argue there's no evidence warranting removal; then saying the Senate will "never" give us the "desired" outcome. one "Desired" outcome is for the Senate to hear the evidence; and let the voters evaluate whether the Senators did or didn't do what was reasonable. Why is the Speaker afraid of representative democracy and voter oversight? A vote is not a blank check, but can be adjusted through ongoing, direct oversight.

This misconstrues the problem: Pelosi blocked investigations. There's no basis for her to argue that impeachment should or should not be pursued. She has no information to justify her decision:

"Pelosi has made a decision not to pursue impeachment."

Impeachment is a power of the House; the Constitution does not delegate to the Speaker any power on impeachment. She cannot make a lawful "decision" on impeachment. Only the House decides impeachment. Your assertion implicitly asks us to believe that the Speaker has assumed and exercised, as Speaker, powers only delegated to the House; for that, she should be removed, investigated, and arguably prosecuted through direct prosecutions of a sitting Speaker.

Whether that decision aided domestic enemies is one which might be relevant on issues of alleged treason. Denying the House the power to choose the Speaker with direct elections would help mitigate future chances of this alleged unchecked treason.

Her reasons do not stand scrutiny; and could subject her, as DOJ OLC foresaw, to a war crimes tribunal/indictment through extradition:

"She has her reasons."

This narrowly looks at the issue of whether or not the public does or doesn't support Pelosi; and misses the issue of the Speaker -- as an officer elected by the House -- is not responsive to the Constitution. We voted for change in 2006, but didn't get it. It is time to discuss new, lawful solutions, not excuses for more (ignored) "votes for change":

"You may not agree with them, but if you are so adamant, then vote those representatives who support her out of office."

We're moving the place where they key is held from the House to the voters. Before we argue to "wait more" to show them out the door; why not have another approach: Require them to get a key from the voters to enter the door to begin with. The House shows not inclination in removing or showing the door this alleged traitor. Without this key from the voters, the official has no entry to the Speakership; nor access to the Speaker's gavel.

This "movement" has started, as another Constitution is the subject of ongoing discussion. This is not something to be feared as a possibility, but acknowledged as a certain, welcome reality:

"Or start a movement to bring in a whole new Constitution."

This grasps what has happened, the Constitution has been ignored, there's no enforcement, and changes are needed to ensure rights are preserved and power is constrained:

"Because the change you suggest is nothing less."

On the table is a lawful discussion of a new Constitution. One step is to work with your local election boards to put your "Speaker preference" on your local ballots. The public must discuss whether removing Pelosi as Speaker; or whether a change in how the Speaker is or isn't elected will be good enough.

We are pleased to remain hopeful that the 6,000 who support the removal of the Speaker form a powerful block of hopeful souls. We remain hopeful, confident, and inspired by the 6,000 who dared to stand up to the abuse of power. They and the world community:

"Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." (Romans 8:24-24)

When we speak, we work to assert power, defend the Constitution, and inspire others to remain hopeful: There are options to realize and eventually achieve what we know is possible: The defense of the Constitution, and the preservation of rights, and the lawful assault on tryanny.

Let's consider some of the "reasoning" people might use to induce some of the 6,000 to give up hope. One approach to (unsuccessfully) challenge a position is to contradict oneself.

Those who ask that we give up hope rely on faulty reasoning. Where there is no direct text, there is no text; where there is text, there is the hope of change:

"To those who want to thwart the above options supporting an Amendment to directly elect the Speaker, convince these 6,000 people to join you in your excuses for inaction and complicity."

There has been no retraction nor qualification of the original position of hope. To qualify or retract "hope" is to go against human nature. The opposite would ask that we accept darkness and pessimism. The following will show this darkness is not a permanent fixture, but one that history shows cannot endure.

Anyone who wants to support any policy of inaction against the Speaker must convince 6,000 people -- who support removing the Speaker -- that inaction is a preferable course of action. Anyone who asks that the 6,000 give up hope asks that they defy what is within them: The hope that We can succeed.

This misrepresents the argument, as there has been no retraction of anything that points to the hope the 6,000 have to challenge the status quo; and their power and position to compel others to justify hopelessness.

"In case you do not wish to read Testing's lengthy retraction, the simple response was that [testing] has withdrawn the following comment:

We stand by the following, as discussed above:

To those who want to thwart [the above reasons for hope and lawful] options supporting an Amendment to directly elect the Speaker, convince these 6,000 people to join you in your excuses for inaction and complicity."

The issue is the inaction on efforts to remove Pelosi and adjust the Constitution: This not binding; but a catalyst to remain hopeful. However, despite this promise and reason for hope, the 6,000 supporting removal of the Speaker must be convinced that inaction is preferable. That is the burden of those proposing inaction relates to many other issues:

(a) the effort to remove Pelosi by declaring the Speaker's position vacant; and/or

(b) the efforts to challenge Pelosi through a direct debate, or direct prosecution of the Speaker for alleged collusion/complicity with war crimes; and/or

(c) efforts to change how the Speaker, in general without regard to Pelosi, is or isn't elected; and/or

(d) efforts to investigate and impeach the President with or without the Speaker's support; and/or

(e) efforts to bypass the Speaker, and directly prosecute a sitting President outside impeachment, outside Congress; and/or

(f) the power of the 6,000 to justify to others a "reason" to "give up hope"; or embrace the "benefit" of hopelessness, inaction;

Non-Sensical Use of "Infer"

Let's consider the definition of "infer":

deduce: reason by deduction; establish by deduction

In this case, "infer" is what a reader would do by reading words, looking for a reason to give up hope despite the bounty of hope around us. There has been no "establishment" of any connection between the 6,000 who support removing Pelosi; and the Constitutional Amendment to change how the Speaker was or wasn't elected. There is the hope that the 6,000 will realize they have power to compel others to justify abandoning hope. It only takes one to have hope.

Indeed, 6,000 are more than one. Whether the 6,000 do or do not abandon hope is irrelevant; but this does not mean they are deprived of any power or option to compel others to convince them of hopelessness or the benefits of inaction.

At least one remains hopeful. That is all that is needed. The 6,000 may or may not choose to remain hopeful. That is their choice.

The absurd claim is that inaction on any effort to remove Pelosi, change the Constitution, or have direct elections of the Speaker, must be justified to those who advocate action. This boils down to a simple argument:

One remains hopeful. They are joined by 6,000 with the hope of change, regardless the roadblocks.

Others, not the 6,000, have the burden to justify abandoning the right and power of the 6,000: The ability to compel others to justify hopelessness through inaction.

This comment failed to explain or justify why this belief is warranted, and incorrectly uses the word, "infer":

"Within the comment, [the writer] inferred that anyone that disagrees with [the] proposal of direct elections for the speaker of the house has to convince these 6,000 people that the proposal is incorrect."

It's impossible for the writer to infer anything that was not specifically stated. Whether a reader "inferred" something is a separate issue. An "inference" is something that the reader, when corrected, should or should not understand. Some readers, despite many reasons to embrace hope, remain unconvinced, attached to hopelessness.

Yet, despite the above reasons for hope, some readers may not understand a call for those proposing inaction must make their case to the 6,000 who remain hopeful. We have met our burden to attempt to clarify. Whether a reader, despite the clarification, is or isn't satisfied is out of our control.

The burden remains with those who want to justify inaction. They must convince the 6,000 that inaction was preferable, to abandon hope, and to give up their faith that they can make a difference. They are allied with the Constitution. And one who remains hopeful. It only takes one.

This is an example of an argument which relies on a false premise:

"Through such a statement, testing asserts and infers that the 6,000+ people support [the] proposal for a constitutional amendment to elect the speaker.

The statement above defies reason. Among other things, the argument

A. Starts with the incorrect definition of "infer", and asks that we, the readers, should abandon the hope of change;

B. Asks readers to believe this incorrect definition of infer, despite the reasons to remain hopeful;

C. Asks others, despite the attempt to clarify, to hold onto an incorrect characterization of the argument; then

D. Establishes a faulty argument and conclusion; and then

E. Asks that we reject the conclusion, despite the faulty argument.

This is an example of a correct assessment -- that 6,000 people are not directly linked with an effort to change the Constitution -- but is unrelated to whether or not anyone has attempted to say that.

"They do not."

We as readers can agree that the 6,000 never specifically imagined, as a condition of signing the petition, that their support of the Petition to remove Pelosi is conditioned upon their support for anything else. The 6,000 were motivated and hopeful when they signed the petition. It remains to be seen whether they are motivated to (correctly) shift the burden of proof to those who appeal to hopelessness.

Those arguing for inaction -- on an Amendment to change the Constitution in how the Speaker is elected -- must convince the 6,000 that inaction is preferable; that hope must be abandoned; that nothing can be done. It might be; but that is the burden for those arguing for inaction and hopelessness to specifically address the 6,000 who do support the removal of the Speaker.

There has been no convincing argument that hopelessness is beneficial. The following arguments have not been presented to the 6,000:

A. Myth: "You have individually and collectively argued for removing the Speaker. However, you should not support this Constitutional Amendment, because of these reasons . . . [none provided]."

Reality: No reasons have been provided to justify why the 6,000 should change their position calling for the Speaker's removal, or to abandon their hope that this abuse of power can be lawfully confronted with other methods.

B. Myth: "The Speaker and President continue to engage in alleged collusion on war crimes. You have supported removal of the Speaker. We ask that you ignore the fact that nothign has happened in the House; and that you not support any other effort to challenge the Speaker for the following reasons . . . [none provided]."

Reality: No reasons have been provided to the 6,000 to justify accepting the inaction against the Speaker on war crimes.]

C. Myth: "The House, as Chamber, has refused to listen to your call to remove the Speaker. Despite the House inaction, as you requested; we request you support other inaction on efforts which you may not have yet considered.

Reality: There is no reason to give up hope. Other options are on the table.

D. Myth: "Please do not think about the possibility that once the House ignores you on the request to remove the Speaker, that there are other options within your power to challenge the Speaker."

Reality: All people are free to believe that there are reasons for hope. We the People are free to ignore the House, develop a new system of oversight, and collectively discuss hopeful reasons to challenge this abuse of power.

E. Myth: Despite the House ignoring you on your calls to remove the Speaker, do not think about your option to work with your local state election officials to include a "Speaker preference" in the booth.

Reality: Despite the House inaction on the petition to remove Pelosi, the 6,000 supporting that petition still have other options which nobody has adequately explained away. There is every reason to remain hopeful, especially when those arguing for hopelessness rely on sophistry.

F. Myth: "You are required to pretend the House decision not to respond to your request to remove the Speaker is final, and you have no other options."

Reality: Nobody can stop you from doing anything lawful. Some readers, by their own admission, have asserted this principle: Nobody can stop them from doing what is lawful. All have options, and the House inaction on the petition to remove Pelosi opens the door for a public discussion of other options the 6,000 may wish to consider.

G. Pretend that anyone who dares question whether or not the effort to change the Constitution is impossible, and that the decision to not challenge the Speaker is final.

Reality: Those who support removal of the Speaker through the House, have the option to work with others to change whether the House is or isn't a factor in whether the Speaker is or isn't insulated from efforts to remove her. There is a reason for hope because those who are arguing for hopelessness fail to grasp the power of We the People to discuss lawful alternatives, to bypass the House, and remind the 6,000 that the House inaction on teh Speaker removal is not the final decision. The final decision rests with We the People, not the Speaker.

Whether the 6,000 remain hopeful and support other options is a separate issue than whether some may hope to convince others hopelessness is a reason for We the People to compel others to convince us hopelessness and inaction are permanent stats of affairs. They are not. The "usual" response is hope, despite efforts to pretend there is a reason to give up hope.

This argument is misdirection from the options the 6,000 have, and asks that we pretend the House inaction is final. It is not, and lacks specifics and provides no examples to justify belief:

"When confronted with the misinformation that he has put out into the debate, testing's response is a usual one."

The above implicitly asks that the world community give up hope; not keep all options on the table; and that we ignore the writings in Federalist 77 which include specific language to always keep impeachment on the table:

Federalist77: "[The President] being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office

When the Speaker is a roadblock to that assumption behind the Separation of powers, we can either:

- Change the Speaker
- Lawfully change the rules
- Confront the Speaker
- Confront the House
- Adjust the way the power is delegated to permit inaction against the President
- Remind those who support removal that there is a reason for hope, and there are other options on the table outside the control of the Speaker
- Change how the Speaker is delegated power

But hope does not need to be debated. Today we make an exception: To show hope, even when debated, cannot be defeated.

This is a sample of an accusation which has not been supported:

"[Testing] first seeks to change the argument through blatant misrepresentation."

"Blatant" can be defined as

without any attempt at concealment

The error is to pretend We the People should remain hopeful by relying on misrepresentations. We've clarified the reasons even the hopeless should embrace to remain hopeful. Their resistance is understandable.

How one "misprepresents" hope defies reason. They provide nothing specific to discuss. We cannot, despite hope, address what is vague. However, continuing with the vague reasoning to abandon hope.

Notice the shift in the argument:

[ From ]

A. The burden of the hopeless: To justify the 6,000 embrace inaction;

[ To ]

B. The misdirection of hopeless: Whether or not 6,000 do or do not support the specific change

As well clarified, the argument wasn't that the 6,000 support or do not support a specific change; but whether others, outside the 6,000 can or cannot convince the 6,000 of the benefits of inaction relative to that change.

Those who argue that, after a refsal to remove the Speaker, that we should not have other changes, have a burden, to convince those who support other options to give up hope:

"To those who want to thwart the above options supporting an Amendment to directly elect the Speaker, convince these 6,000 people to join you in your excuses for inaction and complicity."

Notice the phrase: "Above options," that is plural. It means we cannot be possibly talking only about the decision to support or not support a removal, but about the options here to put the Speaker's preference on the local ballot; and do other things within our power to confront the unresponsive US government.

Those who argue, after the House refuses to consider removing the Speaker, that we should not consider other options; have failed in their argument.

"Within [the] misrepresentation, [the hopeful one] argues that the 6,000 people want change of the current speaker, so therefore change is represented by the proposed amendment he put forth."

Indeed, change is in the Amendment; whether the 6,000 abandon hope now, or work to support that Amendment isn't the issue. The question is whether anyone outside the 6,000 can convince the 6,000 despite House inaction, that they must abandon hope.

That is the burden of those who are hopeless. It is impossible for hopeless people to convince the hopeful to abandon hope, unless they successfully use sophistry. It will not work on one. It has no prospect of working on 6,000. The hopeless have an impossible burden.

The correct language should be,

"Despite efforts to explain the reason to still have hope, some readers are still convinced that there is no reason for hope."

There is always a reason for hope, as there are other options which the 6,000 may wish to consider. The 6,000 are not required to give up hope merely because the House chooses to ignore them. The issue is despite options and a reason for hope, there is no reason to believe any excuse to give up hope. This is a position, which the hopeless must attack, but they cannot destroy:

The hopeless will only destroy hope using non-sense, manipulation, and defective arguments.

The above shows there are reasons for hope.; and something can be done. Whether others outside the 6,000 can convince them of the "benefits" of inaction is the impossible burden on the hopeless. It has no chance of prevailing. We the People are doomed to succeed.

We've outlined the relationship between the 6,000 and options to challenge the Speaker. Despite the explanation and reasons for hope, some pretend the 6,000 do not have a powerful position: they can demand those arguing for hopelessness to justify their hoplelessness. That is impossible.

The 6,000 should be confident that even if the House refuses to act, that inaction is not binding; and does not constrain the 6,000 to have faith that there are other options on the table which can compel the Speaker to respond; or remain accountable directly to the people.

This isn't an accurate statement about an "assertion", but something a reader might (incorrectly) infer despite a reason to have hope: There is something that can be done. This is an example of changing the reader's (incorrect) inference; and pretending that it is what a writer is asserting:

"Such assertions are incorrect."

No, there is a reason for hope. The above is a faulty argument which the hopeless embrace. The 6,000 have every reason to have hope. The excuses for inaction against the Speaker on the petition has no relationship to whether there are or are not other options to challenge the House, this President, the Speaker, or lawfully discuss new options to constrain power, and protect rights.

But this does not address the specific things that can be done to remind the hopeless that there is a reason for hope. The petition to challenge the Speaker through a removal decision is only one reason for the 6,000 to have hope [text added]:

"The petition is [in part] against the current speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and [among other things] her alleged unwillingness to enforce checks and balances [and refusal to open all teh doors to an investigation of the President for alleged war crimes. Her inaction warrants putting the Speaker under review through investigations, war crimes prosecutors, state level investigations, and Constitutional challenges to change how the Speaker is elected]."

The premise for the post is that there is a reason for hope; and the 6,000 are in a powerful position to say to anyone arguing for hopelessness, "convince me that inaction is required." There is something the hopeful can do, despite the House inaction. It is up to the hopeless to convince all of the 6,000 that they should embrace hopelessness.

This fails to capture the core differences bewteen (a) some readers; (b) some who signed the petition, and (c) some who are looking for a reason to have hope; and (d) those who are arguing for inaction and hopelessness:

"The petition is not against the entire role of the speaker or institution of the speakership, which is the premise of testing's original posting."

The reader appears to not understand the premise of communication: It is to inspire others to know that there is hope, that they individually are important, and that the 6,000 are very powerful: They must be convinced that hopelessness, inaction, and the House decision are the required status quo. They are not.

This assessment fails:

"As you see, through sweeping generalizations, testing attempts to misconstrue the evidence of the 6,000 in favor of his or her argument."

The above is not compelling, for these reasons:

A. They have not discussed the "evidence" of hope. It is within the heart of the 6,000 who refuse to accept that inaction is required. Something can be done. Whether they act or not is a separate issue;

B. They're attempting to argue against hope. That is impossible to succeed when one remains hopeful;

C. They attempt to pretend that the 6,000 are supporting one thing, and this is unrelated to any hope that other options are on the table. The options available are different than the burden on the hopeless.

The main problem with those who are arguing against hope is that they're attempting to make an excuse that the 6,000 are required to only remain hopeful about a change in the status quo through one option.

One problem is the House refusal to challenge the Speaker. With that inaction, the 6,000 form the basis to say, "Many people support hope," and they cannot be easily convinced of hopelessness or the benefit of inaction when there remain other options. The 6,000, even if inspired by hopelessness, must still accept they must then turn to attack the last hopeful one.

They will never succeed. For that reason alone, the Speaker's arguments shall fail; and the present status quo supporting inaction has no hope. It will inevitably crumble, and be irrelevant.

This is an example of a reader using valid terms, but reversing them to apply on an irrelevant issue:

"Once [the] misdirection is put in place, testing then goes on within [the] comment to attack the messenger."

The above fails to adequately discuss the above discussion about the reasons the 6,000 have hope; and does not adequately address the options the 6,000 have to convince them that inaction and hopeless is preferred. The arguments (for most) speak for themselves.

The misdirection lies with those who pretend hopelessness is preferable. You'll note there are no textual references to specific "attacks" on a specific "messenger", forming an invalid argument.

The following comments speak more about those who have given up hope, and ask the 6,000 to ignore their comments:

"It is a juvenile act that testing has done often. [The poster] has a history of doing so to many posters that provide divergent viewpoints . . .

The above fails to justify why hope is something that is "juvenile". If it were juvenile and invalid, then there would be no reason to consider the points, much less refute them. The hopeless develop sophisticated mythologies to justify inaction, hopelessness, and a loss of faith.

They've provided no examples to justify the belief that there is a "history" of hopelessness. The above asserts there are "many" examples, without citing one.

The issue on the table: Is whether the 6,000 who support removing the Speaker understand that the burden is not on them to justify their hope. Those who say that there are no other options; and that the 6,000 must accept inaction are not seeing the reality: There is a reason for hope; and the 6,000 enjoy a special position of power. They must be convinced of the benefits of hopelessness, otherwise they remain a block fo 6,000. It is the burden of the hopeless to explain how, after the 6,000 signed a petition, the 6,000 will be convinced of hopelessness. The evidence of their signature on their petition proves they are hopeful.

The following fails to understand that hope is all around. There is no reason to change the inherent hope and faith that we can solve this problem. The issue isn't whether something is false; but whether anyone has argued that hope should be abandoned.

With that said, I am glad that testing retracted [the] original false statement.

Every American citizen, and every person on the planet should have confidence that even if the House decides to do nothing, there is a reason to have hope. There are other options; and the 6,000 have dared to put their name to the hope that the Speaker's decision to allegedly remain in collusion with the President is one that can be challenged.

Hope is what binds us with the faith that abusive power can be challenged:

"I realize though that in pointing out the error in testing's comment, he surely would spend an hour attempting to write a sharp worded bitter comment as he [already] did."

Perhaps the world community could consider the non-sensical concept: "The bitterness of hope". Those who see bitterness in hope deserve the special care of those who have not lost hope:

"I'll await the bitter response that will surely be coming from testing. Hopefully, testing will stop using the royal we within his or her postings."

We have shown the reasons some might use to dissuade hope are fleeting. The 6,000 form a large block of people who have not been adequately given any reason to give up hope; nor abandon their faith that We the People may lawfully confront abusive power.

Matthew 6:14-15:

"14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

You are forgiven for your loss of hope. Now join the 6,000 who remain hopeful.

You are outnumbered. Even if you convince the 6,000 to give up hope, you have not considered it only takes one to re-convince them to re-embrace hope. You have an impossible task against 6,000; and have not considered the power of one (1) who remains hopeful.

We have proven:

The hopeless have no hope.

The hopeless have no hope of convincing one (1) with hope, much less 6,000 who have expressed hope in a petition:

- To abandon hope.
- To be convinced by the hopeless of inaction
- To avoid discussing other options
- That inaction -- on an Amendment to challenge the House, and how the Speaker is elected -- is preferable to the status quo of tyranny.

The hopeless have no hope. Their leaders cannot lead. Prepare to lose. The lawful confrontation hasn't started. Even the hopeless have lost hope in hopelessness.

The best the hopeless can offer is the status quo, which one (1) rejects, not to mention the 6,000 who show they can be convinced to embrace hope. They are already leaning away from hopelessness.

Conversely, the hopeless have the burden to convince the 6,000 to give up hope, and destroy the hope in one (1). That defies reason. The hopeless have lost without the hopeful doing anything but being led by hope. Prepare to lose.

There has been no adequate discussion of why anyone can credibly argue for inaction on these options.

The 6,000 do not agree with inaction. Whether they do or do not support the effort to Change the Constitution and rules about popularly electing a speaker is a separate issue.

The burden is on those who say the hopeful require evidence. They do not. The hopeful only require hope, something the hopeless do not (yet) have. They only have excuses for inaction, misdirection, and denial.