Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: CHANGING THE NARRATIVE: Newsflash - - -> Another world is possible. Here's how. . .

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 5:13 p.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

UPDATE: Be sure to check out this short article and short video. Both will MAKE YOUR DAY!!! :) http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/iceland-shows-how-to-solve-economic-crisis

A friend of mine is a well-meaning democrat who is fiscally conservative.  He says the leaders of our nation need to tell citizens that austerity is coming and we need to lower our expectations.  He thinks it's sad and unfair but that we just have to get used to it because "these entitlement programs are just dragging us down and the good jobs aren't coming back."  Sound familiar?  The narrative occurs at all levels (from the Economist down to USA Today).  The 7 corporations that own the mainstream media in the world have drilled this narrative into our heads. 

If you're one of those well-meaning folks who are sad about austerity but doesn't see any other choice, well then here is my message to you:

In nations across the world, many corporations and the wealthiest among us pay little or no taxes yet huddle behind the rallying cry of austerity (more than enough money for us but Grandma's got to eat cat food).  Example:  5 members of the Walton family have as much wealth as the poorest 40% of American citizens combined -- as much as 120 million people!  Walmart made a net profit of $15 billion last year and yet taxpayers give a $1 billion subsidy to Walmart annually (80% of Walmart workers are paid so little that they are on some type of public assistance).   Something is seriously unbalanced here.  The richest 1% have more than 30% of the wealth (a figure that's climbing).  And 90% of that wealth is inherited.  So much for pulling ourselves up by those bootstraps.  

Most of the people in the country have been distracted from this bigger picture by the back and forth between the two parties.  The seven corporations who own all mainstream media make sure of this.  The result is that most of the citizens are so immersed in the folly of the duopoly that they haven't noticed much larger problem that BOTH parties have been bought off by corporations.  

You and many smart well-meaning people are saying the press and leadership needs to give the bad news to the public that the party is over, the good jobs aren't coming back and austerity is coming. But why are you suggesting people simply accept the bad news?  Why do you assume that the "austerity" assault around the world is entirely legitimate and unstoppable?  It sounds like you're stuck in the false narrative that "it's sad but there's no other way." 

Of course there's another way.  If you haven't heard, Starbucks locations across England have been systematically shut down by protests because the corporation pays almost no taxes -- while at the same time basic public services (rape crisis centers and homeless shelters for example) are being shut down around the country.  Huge corporate interests skate leaving regular folks with the bill -- and then when it can't be paid, the politicians & press (bought and paid for by corporations) say "gosh it's sad but all we can do is cut." Many citizens unfortunately nod their heads in agreement, not realizing this is a VERY intentional and vicious power and wealth grab that is PREVENTABLE. ...1% of the people can't hoard the wealth and rule over 99% of the population for long.  Even some of the wealthiest are surprised this has continued unchecked.

People aren't buying austerity.  They're not stupid.  They SEE what's happening.  They see real wages shrinking and widening income and wealth inequality. They & their family, friends and neighbors are really suffering. Yet corporations and the 1% are thriving.  The contrast is glaring and the jig is up.  That's why we should push these "8 DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS" soon:

  1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT that were repealed in the 90's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act . Most economists believe the repeal of this act directly contributed to the severity of the financial crisis of 2007–2011.

  2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis 

  3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections.  This law should also restore the "Fairness Doctrine".

  4. CONGRESS PASS a revised version of THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. 

  5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it FULLY at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. 

  6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS (including ALEC) WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

  7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TO GO TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year.

  8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. 

The list of 8 items above is NOT an end all be all, of course.  But those things will get the corporate foot off our neck long enough to allow us the breathing room to go further towards the root of the problem.

Water has been building up behind the dam for a long long time and soon the dam will break.  If we are proactive, we can get it to break in a good way that restores our republic, removing the corporatists who have temporarily hijacked our great nation. Is there REALLY not enough to go around?

Practically speaking, what can we do to start the ball rolling with the list of 8 items above?  Well - How did Gandhi and fellow protesters beat the British?  How did Martin Luther King, Jr. and fellow civil rights advocates get dramatic legislation enacted that positively affected millions of people?  Nonviolent direct action brings injustice into the light.  Look how they're doing it here juxtaposing the obscene wealth with the cuts right out in the open: http://www.occupywallst.org/article/starbucks-occupied-across-britain/

More and more of this is coming.  Last fall was just a warm up.  In order to implement the 8 items on the list of goals above, it will take protests of about 800,000 people or more in DC and New York and we will have to gather multiple times -- but the fuel is definitely there for this to happen sometime in the next 18 months.  

What would these protesters do?  Well, here's just one example for Washington, DC:

First, well in advance of any such large protest, we need to work on getting a larger percentage of Americans to hear the message that our democracy has been hijacked.  Here's one small example, a short and approachable video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Next they might read a document like "OUR TURN": http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn-a-message-to-all-americans/ . Then they'd see a list of the 8 goals and a game plan to achieve them that might look something like this:

TACTICS FOR "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

We should make the 8 demands above very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. (late spring 2014 to allow time for planning, laying groundwork and buildup).  When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 30 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 30th day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

KEEP IN MIND: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

**NOTE 1: Tension can be transformative and good.**  The following is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail":

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. . . I am not afraid of the word 'tension'. I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. . . The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. . ."

**NOTE 2: Check out these 4 award winning documentaries** -- INSIDE JOB, THE CORPORATION, WHY WE FIGHT & MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

Once we realize we have more in common than we have dividing us, we can make decisions from a position of united strength rather than demands from a position of divided weakness.  It's about damn time.


(Please see this link for more on the details of the austerity lie: http://occupywallst.org/forum/austerity-the-1s-global-battle-cry-by-mark-vorpahl/ ) & this link for more on what's really possible: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-dont-see-the-power-we-have-in-our-hands-to-tran/

230 Comments

230 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by trashyharry (1142) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

Another world is possible.No more Bosses.No more Owners.No more Paramilitary Cops.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

It's weird how the police do seem to have transformed into a military style force in recent years. Also scary was their extreme and violent response to peaceful protesters during the last 14 months. . .

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (1142) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

They should figure out a way to extract money from the limitless wealth stockpiles of their Masters.My lips to God's Ear-the day will come when they will decide no amount of money is worth laying down their lives.The lives of all of the Oligarchs and their Servants combined is not worth the life of one honest American worker-or even worth the life of one screaming,legless,homeless wino in a broken wheelchair-drunk or sober.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

There were some interesting moments at occupy actions where occupy marchers who were being corralled by police asked police whose side they were on. . . And it was done in a human to human way --- with genuine kindness, and you could tell some of the policemen were wrestling with it. I think with kindness we can get through to them and help them see that they are part of the 99%.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes, some respect the constitution. Which is why overt protest in defense of the constitution will work better than demanding your rights.

The better that constitutional intent is expressed the more you will find their support.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Freedom of speech is a pretty important right. We need a strong powerful government (free of corporate influence). to protect freedom of speech so corporations don't limit it by hijacking our system and privatizing everything. Incidentally that strong powerful government free of corporate influence could have prevented the 2008 financial crisis as well.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

You have a strong powerful goverment.What you have now is a result of that.If they were not so strong they would be more obediant to the people.As it now stands they do not obey because there is nothing to fear from it's subjects.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Our government has been hijacked by corporatists. There's a reason Donald Regan was standing next to president Reagan on the balcony if the stock exchange. . . Telling Reagan to "speed it up". Reagan taught us that government was the enemy when in fact the wolf was standing right beside him.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

I like to think that the enemy is the people that own the people that are in power.Regan was in a sense correct in what he said.He just wanted a goverment that would function at the behest of a few.No different than the present actor.The whole function is about controling the masses.A sfronger goverment means more control(security) and an assult on all our rights.Hence patriot act/acts to control computers/and the latest gun control noise with a dose of fiscal cliff thrown in.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

A strong SEC and strong justice department and strong federal government in general could have prevented the 2008 financial crisis.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

A strong Justice department did exist.It, along with strong SEC oversight helped bring about the financial swindel.It is only a crisis when you are on the losing end.Another perfect crime.And you and the following generations will pay.Keep looking to the goverment to save you.They never have and never will.IT is not there function.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

SEC was not strong at all. Ridiculously underfunded for the regulatory task at hand. Capitalism needs guardrails and those guardrails have been systematically disabled from 1980 on.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Yes they have been.Capatalism does not need gaurdrails.It needs to end.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

If only the laws on the books were upheld - ON ALL - then the mess would never have developed - at least not like it has - as we would still be locked in a battle to stop the rise of greed/crime/destruction.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

One of the rules for radicals I believe is to hold the powers that be to their own rules. They can't possibly follow them and it will confound them.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - that is a popular general summation of the 1st testament ( the old testament ) - they could not follow the rules laid out for them.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The rule makers should always have been held to the STRICTEST compliance.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Expression of constitutional intent is actually sacred, because it protects life. The intense 60 year manipulation in the middle of a 100 year dumbing down is devastating to our ability to agree and get a uniform support for political action that is comprehensive enough to make a significant change.

Therein is the reason for 1)(Ending the abridging of free speech) being prime in the preparatory amendments.

Basically there is quite a bit of false information that has been fed to counter culture that needs to be dealt with in order to develop a realistic perspective that includes a healthy appreciation of exactly what kind of infiltration our government has undergone.

In that, is a kind of filter for government employees. We test them with what we know and agree upon relating to prime constitutional principles and take serious exception to any failures. That starts and NEVER stops. After the government is constitutional THEN we can back off a lot, but still, it needs to be a national past time that EACH generation is capable of.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

But wants the point you're trying to get at? Please explain in layman's terms. Pretend you're explaining it to the guy who fixes your car or the waitress at the local coffee shop or the manager of the local hardware store. I'm eager for the bigger picture view here.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Crack the whip eh-The right to alter or abolish is contained in Article V controlled by constitutional intent which is parallel to the best human social instinct.

Americans need to evoke that instinct to demonstrate they can control Article V.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You're speaking in riddles. It's getting boring.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

? the best human instincts are exciting. What's up?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Jefferson said each generation should review every law for applicability to their times.

He said a country being governed by laws created when it was young is like an old man trying to fit into a coat from his childhood.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Review laws through Article V. Amendment causes revisions in laws so they are constitutional.

Article V is a lawful and peaceful revolution.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Seems kinda extreme, & difficult to co ordinate. i did check NJ & CT, they're no where near a convention (like NY). How's the other 47 states doin.?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

As long as free speech is abridged and the confusion exists within activism about how the people can get the needed authority to make the changes that must be made to adapt, a visible contingent will be hard to see in any state.

It will begin with people spread out over all the states that understand that Article V is the only way to break from the status quo political control and assure rights and freedoms as well a government that will work for a sustainable future.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah man. Cool. How's that workin out for you.?

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Activists used against their best interests are waking up. This is going well. Partisan politics as usual go no where except where the 1% want them to go.

American activists who know a little law and educate themselves into Article V will begin to realize that anything but Article V is not effective, and there is a very good chance they are being used against their best interests to simply take up a movement because its been made socially desirable to do so.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 1 year ago

I have to agree. As time passes and more movements disappear, I realize that most of what is visible is contrived and not relative to solving the problems they profess to be dedicated to.

It's depressing and your proposal for preparation for article 5 appears to be very logical. The misleading that keeps the activists here from realizing that constitutional values are indeed, the root of the motivation that drives them to make demands, is hard to see. But over time, we see it fail. Sad, because this is going getting down to demanding the right to assemble. Yes, good luck!

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

In the time of ows, NDAA & FISA have been brought in. You'ld think someone would notice the timing which is almost mocking the movement.

Not my proposal. Christopher Brown came up with preparatory Amendment. He was here in 2011 and last year, and still does post now and then. Been an education in the unusual view, but enlightening and probably very functional if some understanding of the function of constitutional principle in meeting demands, develops.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sounds exciting. Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Someone posted that ows was a trigger for the nwo controlled cops and officials to escalate oppression.

Since ows, drum circles are met with rubber gloved cops with an attitude.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I think it was more the nonviolent direct action than the drumming. :). But it's true that occupy movement received oddly violent reaction from police. Why the riot gear for peaceful protesters? Answer: to scare others from joining them. Question: why would authorities be so scared others would join them? Because national polls by mainstream national news outlets last fall showed that 40-50% of Americans supported occupy. And you can bet that that silent majority does not now have some reformed opinion of the banksters and corporations. So the latent threat of nonviolent direct action on a massive scale is still very much present.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I do remember something about "black bloc" or something that escalated law enforcements reaction. I also read here discussion about destructive agitators that were bussed in. It's clear to me that the originators of ows, through the anarchists, left the door open for agitation that would provide an excuse.

This works really well when the protest is not there obviously standing for the constitution.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Occupy is us. Not the organizers. And occupy remained remarkably nonviolent. There is no excuse for hitting and pepper spraying, arresting, shoving, intimidating and barricading hundreds of students, teachers, factory workers, handicapped people, bus drivers, small business people etc. No excuse whatsoever. No excuse for the military style crackdown on nonviolent peaceful protesters exercising their first amendment rights. No fucking excuse. No way. Total bullshit. And it's horrendous that Americans stood by and let that happen to true patriots who were fighting for the rule of law, fighting to restore this great nation by unseating the corporatists who have hijacked our nation.

We need to push back with nonviolent direct action: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/

This situation will not stand.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Occupy was set up for marginalization and the organizers had to have known the vulnerability.

No excuse in your mind, but there are plenty of people that have no problem with it considering the media misrepresentation ENABLED by violent destructive protesters that INFILTRATED the protest. Not occupy.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I have no idea what you're talking about. What are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

The reason law enforcement gets away with violations of right on such a large scale.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

And you're saying the reason for that is what?

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Occupy was set up for marginalization and the organizers had to have known the vulnerability. No excuse in your mind, but there are plenty of people that have no problem with it considering the media misrepresentation ENABLED by violent destructive protesters that INFILTRATED the protest. Not occupy.

Law enforcement knew officials would use attitude created by the marginalization.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

So do we have solid evidence yet of infiltration. I'm sure it happened. Just wondering if we caught them in the act somehow.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Seems pretty solid and uniform from what I remember the reports saying. The black bloc is just the front tho. There are others that have no face just agenda supporting the marginalization.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-black-bloc-and-ows/

"CHRIS HEDGES: My concern is that the tactics of people who identify themselves as Black Bloc—i.e. petty vandalism, taunting the police, covering your faces—are the portal by which the agents provocateurs can enter and destroy the movement."

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I don't understand your comment below. Can you put it in plain English?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

By knowing and sharing constitutional intent we know who is NOT a provacateur. Provacateurs won't do that. Any behavior which appears provacateur like, should be challenged as sabotage to the protest and those acting need to be confirmed on their ability to know constitutional intent.

This is the whole point of discussing it, so that "the people" know it and that it is constitutional to do so. A benefit is that anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the constitution and people, but fails to engage discussion and recognition of constitutional intent can be seriously questioned as to the intentions.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

How do we keep agent provacateurs out?

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You cant. Just look at this forum. Real life its even easier.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I saw a post by rayolite answering that which was comprehensive to the preparatory amendment of ART 5.

As a people we have the right and duty to know what constitutional intent is. At protests, with overt defense of the constitution, unconstitutional actions, or actions which impair by marginalizing will be easier to see and stop.

Basically the approach that ows has created makes it easy to marginalize and sabotage.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

What do you mean by "purify our numbers" below?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Those against the human principles of the Constitution, for whatever reason, cannot speak for them and cannot support the gathering. When Americans speak they demonstrate their understanding and acceptance of constitutional principles, by seeing the sincere approval, we know our allies, and the others.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

So what do we do to protect against this?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

By our energetic and fearless agreement upon the principles of the constitution, we know one another. By our speaking and assembly in support of our American lives, peacefully, we purify our numbers. By our recognition of the right to alter or abolish abusive government, we become a family of freedom.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

We can do this. We have the power in our hands if we realize that we have more in common then we have dividing us. I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. How about you?

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (1142) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

I totally believe that we can put together a better deal for ourselves than what we have got going right now.We don't need Bosses-for what?Everybody works better without them.We don't need other people to make all the decisions related to the economy-"Owners"-for what?-they only cause disorder,chaos,artificial shortages,panics,monopolies,etc.,all to make bigger profits for themselves.And how in the fuck do we need a militarized police force showing up just in time to oppress and kill us at the behest of "All Powerful" oligarchs and shadowy puppetmasters.They think they don't need us-but I think it is us that doesn't need them.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Good post. No corporations. No military contractors.

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

People above profits. Prioritizing the needs of human beings!

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Damn. That's pretty profound. Well said. That really turns the tables :)

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (1142) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

Not new-at all because even though we see constant change worthless,parasitic oligarchs and elite servant classes seem to stay with us like gum on sneakers.Yuck!

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Yuck indeed :).

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

Thanx for this very good post and further towards "changing the narrative" and also for insights contemporary with current circumstances within a cultural and corporate context, consider also :

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks very much. Will check these out.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

Further to the above, I also append :

"When looking at the faces of the six-year-olds butchered in their Connecticut classroom, you should also see the faces of the politicians who pandered to the NRA and its obsessive opposition to commonsense gun control, the likes of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush." & thanx for your good works here 'tr'.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Man, I just realized how many amazing links you're putting out here. Wish you could someone gather them in one post under subject headings because you have provided all of us with a wealth of resources.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

To you and your 'Spirit' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7plNRs5kwgE ~*~

Thanx for your encouraging and gracious words 'tr'. Using 'user:therising' in the grey search box in te top right of the forum front page, below the orange 'Donate' button, will bring up all (or at least last 50) of your forum-posts - your's or anyone else's :-)

verb. sat. sap. et pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Love that song. Thanks very much for further brightening this beautiful day! Those lyrics are SPOT ON!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Yes, but what I'm getting at is more than your great posts. It's the great links to articles that drive the point home even deeper. You have been an incredible resource on this forum but without a lot of digging, it'll be hard for the average user to get to those important and sometimes mind changing articles (or more difficult to find to share with friends). I realize this is asking a lot - and I and others have no reason whatsoever to ask anything of you . . . But my wish is that some day you'd do a single post that had something like the following title: "Articles to spread far and wide". And in the body of the post, there would be 6, 8, 10 headings "gun control"' "austerity", "freedoms of speech" etc and underneath each heading would just be a list of links. The only thing that could be done to make it even better would be if there was a 5 or 10 word description next to each link.

Anyway, I know you're busy. I'm just being selfish for myself and others because you have put out some powerful and convincing articles from great sources and I would love to see them spread far and wide, far beyond this forum. I think those links would spread far and wide, both individually and collectively as a post if you put it out there that way.

Just an idea coming from someone who often thinks "now where the hell did I see that article. . ." :)

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

I will reflect upon what you say and may well act upon it in the New Year. Finally a live rendition of that song from over 25 yrs ago, incorporating a medley of other moving, relevant songs for Xmas & beyond :

pax et lux ; nuc et semper ; hic et ubique ...

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Wow. Just beautiful. Thanks very much. I needed that :)

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

That song just zooms you way back and gives you some much needed perspective.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

"It's long way to the light" - but worth it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZ9g7O8_Sg ~*~

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for all the excellent links and all you do here. Interested in yor thoughts over here if you get a chance. GOOD NEWS http://occupywallst.org/forum/new-view-why-gun-control-peace-treaties-campaign-f/

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

"A Global Perspective on American Child Deaths", by Donna Mulhearn :

Thanx for your kind words 'tr' and I'll go look at that post now.

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks shadz. Cheers.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

We can Rising !! One thing that all conservative, liberal, and independent Americans believe in is democracy. This is also true of brown, white, black, yellow, green, and grey people. There IS power in unity; which is the exact reason why they try to keep us divided. It's why they're destroying the unions. We have to make the change within ourselves. Our culture. Our mindset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

Now what's the plan? How about giving "The People" veto power over ALL other branches of government?

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

The thought of the unity you are suggesting is very exciting. Once we realize we are the 99% and have more in common tan we have dividing us, we'll be empowered to make decisions from a position of unified strength rather than demands from a position of divided weakness. Imagine 800,000 people surrounding Capitol Hill like this: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/you-may-have-seen-this-list-of-8-practical-goals-b/

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks. Will check out those links. My personal view is that we should follow this plan: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-dont-see-the-power-we-have-in-our-hands-to-tran/

AND THIS ONE:

People aren't buying austerity.  They're not stupid.  They SEE what's happening.  They see real wages shrinking and widening income and wealth inequality. Their family, friends and neighbors are really suffering.  They're suffering. They're eager for action. So we should push smaller nonviolent direct action for the next year or so and then in late spring 2014 we should push these "8 DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS" using nonviolent direct action tactics in DC with crowd of 800,000 people::

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT that were repealed in the 90's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act . Most economists believe the repeal of this act directly contributed to the severity of the financial crisis of 2007–2011.

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis 

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections.  This law should also restore the "Fairness Doctrine".

CONGRESS PASS a revised version of THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. 

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it FULLY at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. 

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS (including ALEC) WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS TO GO TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Why would you wait 1 1/2 yrs before getting serious? Can you elaborate on "smaller nonviolent direct action", and what purpose these actions serve ?

Thanx

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Good questions. Well, if you look at the large nonviolent direct action suggested at http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-message-to-all-the-well-meaning-democrats-and-re/ , it's apparent that it requires huge number of people for it to be successful. So that implies a) lots and lots of groundwork to raise interest to that level and b) tons of planning for the actual event / action.

As far as smaller actions, I think in some ways they are just as important if not more important because there are more of them (1,000ms more quite possibly) and if they are creative they can attract a lot of mainstre attention. More importantly, a thousand actions with a thousand people each equals a million people right? That's even more than the gigantic action I'm suggesting for DC.

To define actions: Well, first of all, in my view and the view of many others, these need to be nonviolent to be effective for all kinds of reasons. That does not mean they're not powerful, forceful and transformative. In fact, nonviolent action is more powerful because it leaves the entity or person perpetrating violence highlighted in bright contrast to the peaceful protesters and makes it more difficult for the person committing injustice to paint the protesters as... Well... Violent and therefore needing to be "taken down.".

Actions could be boycotts, strikes, sit ins, walk outs, protests, blockades, marches etc etc etc etc, anything that creates the healthy kind of tension discussed at the link above (see MLK quote).

I hope I did an OK job responding to your excellent questions. To be clear, I advocate actions every week between now and summer 2014 (actions of all sizes) an I advocate for the same after summer 2014z. The more the better. I don't in any way suggest waiting for anything. :)

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Thank You. You did a good job in answering my questions; I just don't happen to agree.

If you were an employer, and discovered that an employee was stealing from you for the last 30 yrs, would you give him another 1 1/2 yrs to continue his theft; or would you fire him. Same difference.

These people are supposed to be working FOR us. We have the ability and the right to FIRE them. I am totally against giving these SOB's more rope to hang US.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

OK, well, what would you like to see happen? I'm game for anything that sticks to my core principles, works and is nonviolent. I'm interested in your thoughts.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I think that the corruption is so entrenched in our present system, that trying to "fix" things within that broken system is fruitless. I'm in favor of a complete reset and rebuild of our government with the people having oversight power. The present government has already proven that it can't be trusted and requires oversight ................................. don't you think?

The Plan:

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I read the doc but I think the founders designed a great system. It's just that we have allowed it to be hijacked. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water :)

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

If the system has holes in it that allows it to be hijacked to the degree that it has; then the system isn't as great as you state and actually has huge flaws. The only tool we have to control our government are elections, and they have been compromised and only give you the choice of one of the two bought corporate parties.

If you truly looked at the "doc", then you'll know that it only builds upon our current system, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's not a total reset, but a restructuring. You still have legislators, judges, presidents, etc........ only the people have veto power and the final say. IMO, it's the best way to prevent government hijacking, without giving the people legislative powers.

It appears that you like the system we have now, but want the pols to do what's right. Good luck with that, unless you have enough money to buy your representation.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

If you call the recommendations at the following link timid then I stand guilty as charged! :) http://occupywallst.org/forum/breaking-news-hijacking-occurring-every-day-in-the/

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for your response. Do you mind reporting that over here http://occupywallst.org/forum/here-are-a-few-questions-that-i-have-not-been-answ/ with link to the aforementioned doc so we can have more people join in the conversation? Total coincidence but before I saw your response, I posted that (in response to another person voicing some concerns like yours.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I agree with you that we shouldn't wait. Many have taken and are taking all sorts of nonviolent action, participated in boycotts, blockades, democratic elections and voter education, strikes, sit ins, walk outs, letters to the editor, community organizing, running for political office, protesting outside corporate offices etc etc etc I have participated in some of these and will continue to do so. I am suggesting we all act now. What I am trying to say, but haven't said well, is that I think this activity and the numbers involved will continue to ramp up such that larger an larger actions are possible. Tomorrow, you couldn't get 800,000 people in DC. But it's likely you could in 16 - - 18 months :)

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Article V is like giving veto power over all branches of government. Better tho, because specific performance can be made into law. iPhone did that.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Here is Article V. It speaks to congress and state legislators, but I see nothing about the peoples' direct veto power. Congress can punch out unconstitutional laws in very short order, that would take years or decades to veto in this manner, while the people would have no input and be kept in the shadows.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I don't get the Article V thing. I really don't. Can you explain in simple terms?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It basically defines the procedure in which we can change the Constitution. It gives state and federal legislators the right to initiate the change, but the people have no power to do so. The problem today is that most, if not all legislators (state & fed) are on the take and can be easily influenced. This also reflects back to our previous discussion about the quality of our system. It leaves the people toothless. What's below was taken for this site:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for this excellent explanation. Much appreciated.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Your application of words isn't right. Shall & may are carefully used and must be used with of and for the people so that their uses have constitutional intent.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

These aren't my words. I copied and pasted them directly from The Constitution's text.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

My comment is about this which isn't from the constitution.

SparkyJP wrote: "It basically defines the procedure in which we can change the Constitution. It gives state and federal legislators the right to initiate the change, but the people have no power to do so. The problem today is that most, if not all legislators (state & fed) are on the take and can be easily influenced. This also reflects back to our previous discussion about the quality of our system. It leaves the people toothless. What's below was taken for this site:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind."

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I thought we were discussing Article 5 of the Constitution and the rights it doesn't give the people, only legislators.

You said "Article V is like giving veto power over all branches of government. Better tho, because specific performance can be made into law. iPhone did that.

My post addressed this comment

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

People control legislators if they know what they are doing and unified in doing it.

Properly crafted constitutional amendment can make something that works like a standing veto. No, Article V does not provide line item veto. It controls the contents of what can be in line.

Interpretation of Article V needs to be done carefully here:

shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

"may be proposed by the Congress;" limits congresses power. If the states are having difficulty ratifying, "may" would apply. However, congress in our case should be allowed no control.

To do that, 3/4 of the states legislations need to be controlled by American citizens that are ready to make their states legislations constitutional and petitioning relentlessly with demands for reason if Article V is not supported WITH preparatory amendment.

Maybe the legislator knows a mother or father that will give up their children's right to share knowledge needed for survival. NOT!

Also, since the 14th amendment, equal protection is properly used heavily with interpretation of the intent of Article V.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

"People control legislators if they know what they are doing and unified in doing it."

Yeah, and if they have enough money. Legislators respond well to the needs of large donors. Very small groups of people control the legislators, but the majority of "The People" have no control. Corporations and monied interests control the legislators and people know it. It's probably the major reason people come to this form. It's essentially taxation without representation for the most of us.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

"unified" is the critical part. Then, $ don't matter as much. Over time, $ won't matter at all.

When citizens start complaining about the compromises they've suffered with the usurpations of the constitution and demand that legislators work for an Article V by petition to the state, and legislators deny the right; then there is justification for testing the official and if they fail, impeachment or vote them out.

Americans need to understand that they can re dress authority within the framework of constitutional intent when the officials lawful effort to see rights provided.

Forget the limits you describe, they don't apply to people that know their ultimate purposes and are united around them. Fortunately for us, we have the constitution which very directly supports our purposes.

We need to use it. We'll have to get out of the box you keep describing to use it.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I think that the people need to be part of the process however Article V only gives power to state or federal legislators to change the Constitution. The public has no power in this, other than to "push or beg" legislators to make the change. Should this be changed ...... absolutely, but that's how the law stands now. My point is that most legislators are bought, and have no interest in representing us. Voting them out doesn't work when 94% of the time; the guy with the most money wins. I'll leave you with these quotes:

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

By default, under law, any American who needs change, is bound to Article V IF politics of government becomes so corrupt that the principles controlling it vaporize, and they wish to remain free with their life secure.

There is nothing else of substance to use for the creation of change. The methods ows is using have no mechanism of official recognition marginalizing the movements effectiveness. Very sad because the demands are real and need to be met. Certainly the demands are articulated to the society somewhat in the sensation of protest, but then managed by complicit media. That management ends up making the protests appear to be un American to many average American.

By understanding that Article V **is "alter or abolish" as the Declaration of independence defines and using that as a root demand, THEN tacking on the many other valid demands an official movement can be impelled. When activists work with each other to prioritize them properly with reason and fit them into potential proposed amendment so that other Americans can get on board with the sequence and application of constitutional intent, our rights and freedoms are secured and we begin to adapt then find sustainability.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bravo - GR8 comment.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

The public has the power to define constitutional intent. Once defined, the public can use it to test legislators. If the legislators fail, they can be removed and replaced..

SparkyJP wrote: "Article V only gives power to state or federal legislators to change the Constitution."

What this means is that we the people must seize our power and that power comes from agreement upon the fundamental principles of the constitution.

Since free speech is abridged, citizens need to make a greater effort to define and agree upon constitutional intent. Once they do, they will know it IF they sincerely feel a need to defend the constitution.

[-] -1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

"Article V only gives power to state or federal legislators to change the Constitution." This is a fact as the law stands now. If what you're saying is that the people should have more input in our government and we need a change - I couldn't agree more. Personally, I like this idea:

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

It's easier to impeach state officers IF they are not constitutional.

SparkyJP wrote: "Article V only gives power to state or federal legislators to change the Constitution." This is a fact as the law stands now. If what you're saying is that the people should have more input in our government and we need a change - I couldn't agree more. Personally, I like this idea:"

They are closer, the constituency is closer, local even, and the states created the federal constitution. They are the entities that need to be made accountable. AND, by the laws, that's the only real way with legal process.

The important point is that the unity which works on a state level using constitutional intent, works better on the federal because of Article V which is controlled by constitutional intent.

The problem is one intentionally created by corporate control of media and government. The only avenues open under law are ones which require our unity. If we unify around human values intrinsic to our survival and evolution, we are also consistent with constitutional intent.

Corporations can only go there by recognizing human values and constitutional principle. Some will, others will not and eventually disappear. If we give them power now, we disappear too.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I don't think we're both on the same page, as far as Article V; but regardless, I think we both desire the same outcome. We'll get there :)

Cheers

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

"Shall be valid" when ratified by states. Congress and the pres are left out. That means they have no authority to oppose the states ratifications.

What is most constitutional? Do you know the difference? On which side should the authority fall? Towards power that will respect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or some other way?

SparkyJP wrote: "but I see nothing about the peoples' direct veto power."

"shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, "

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Yeah, ratified by legislators of the state, or by delegates in a convention. The people are still not in this picture.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Currently state governments are so unconstitutional that the fact that the congress should have called a convention 100 years ago means nothing.

This only means that the people have to take claim their rightful power of unity under the law of the land. Either insightful communications or mass communications need to accomodate enough people/assembly/opinion to distinguish the action and be the highest authority in the land.

The nycga and others refused to bring Article V as a demand to the assembly. Without real legal process and alternative except escalating protest, it's heading towards insurrection. Staying with defense of the constitution puts lots of people on your side.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

So when you speak of " people have to take claim their rightful power ", are you speaking of revolution, or a type of revolution?

When I mentioned direct veto power, I envision 1 person - 1 vote - online. We already have the technology to do this securely. I don't think that the people should be legislating or creating law; however I do believe we should have the right to reject bad laws or decisions by our government. You can see a diagram labeled "Government 2.0" 2/3's down this page:

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

This is a type of participatory democracy, that empowers the people to guide decisions that affect their lives, and the lives of their families in real-time. Simple voting does not give us this oversight power.

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Article V is the cyclic revolution that Jefferson spoke of and wrote about, dreamed about really. It is a beautify notion.

SparkyJP wrote: "are you speaking of revolution, or a type of revolution?"

Lincoln gives a clue with "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court".

Article V provides the mandate of the revolution,

shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution,

Only the people can properly define constitutional intent.

I do see your strategy however and agree that something like that should be in place. Currently we are so far from having any real control, I mean the nation is hijacked, we need to get the principles of the republic back, and it is our right and only we can know them, "each generation" or something Jefferson said indicating that things change and the constitution will need to change to meet the challenges of keeping government a servant to humanity.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I think you and I agree on much. Where we disagree is on Article 5. It allows state or federal legislators to initiate the change, but gives no power to the people themselves in this process.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy. In fact, only 27 amendments have been ratified since the Constitution became effective, and ten of those ratifications occurred almost immediately--as the Bill of Rights. The very difficulty of amending the Constitution greatly increases the importance of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution, because reversal of the Court's decision by amendment is unlikely except in cases when the public's disagreement is intense and close to unanimous. Even unpopular Court decisions (such as the Court's protection of flagburning) are likely to stand unless the Court itself changes its collective mind.

To my knowledge, the only document that gives the people the right of revolution (but doesn't state how it is to be executed) is the DOI:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

"Only the people can properly define constitutional intent." - I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, however our laws reserve that power to the Supreme Court exclusively. Again, we have no say in that. It's time for a change :)

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes we do agree

SparkyJP wrote:

"I think you and I agree on much. Where we disagree is on Article 5. It allows state or federal legislators to initiate the change, but gives no power to the people themselves in this process."

Correct, however, if the people are active in their states with the issue of constitutional intent, the states can be compelled through democratic vote to ratify the critical preparatory amendments. It's about waking people up with activism that ONLY the people can and will do, which is ALSO the supreme authority under the law of the land.

This is the ONLY proposal that is something the people can exclusively do. Look what it's causing over here, there, every where someone thinks they can question it as a human only process involving our best instincts. There's another link there to more of the same. I consider mothers and fathers as end authorities.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-some-of-what-michael-moore-has-said-in-the-l/#comment-898307

BTW, the supreme crt. can interpret, not define constitutional intent.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Here's to a nonviolent and revolutionary 2013.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (1142) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

Agreed-With Justice For ALL!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

For a change :)

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Austerity is a LIE.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Austerity is pouring fuel on the fire of failure.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

We don't have to accept austerity. We can stand up and say no. There are 99 of us for every one of them. I like those odds. Nonviolent direct action can raise awareness and help us unseat the corporatists who have temporarily hijacked this great nation. All we need to do is realize we have more in common than we have separating us. Then we can make decisions from a position of unified strength instead of demands for a position of divided weakness.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

We will not settle for 'Sacrifice Zones', FEMA Camps, or any 'Hunger Games' like environment.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

All the best to you and yours Nevada.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Thank you friend. And the best to you and yours.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

To me it seems like the media is the most effective weapon used by the 1% to lull us into settling for less and less. I am trying to think of more ways we could push on that front. . .

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Agree. TPTB have been working on this for a long time, with their media weapon. Gradually pay has been reduced and replaced with debt, which also lowers expectation. Putting college out of reach, is crushing.

Awareness is critical. Getting people to question the words of government and MSM, is of monumental importance. Internet is enemy of the elite, and therefore a target.

Lets continue to explore this.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You know, I'm aware it sounds like something we've heard a thousand times now, but for some reason the significance of the following truth just kicked in: you said the "Internet is the enemy of the elite.". That is no small thing. In fact, it may be one of the most important facts for us to wake up to.

In some ways, it feels as if we have a pretty good idea of the "destination" (a system prioritizing human needs over corporate needs) but we don't see a "road" or "path" to that destination. People like me sometimes lament -- like Inid above-- that the 1% has us thoroughly under what seems like an almost unbeatable spell with the mainstream media, full of twisted perspectives on the news and mind numbing consumerism and nihilism. But, to tell you the truth, it finally just really clicked for me that the Internet IS the road or path. If we realize that, it will be the checkmate to the 1%'s owned media force.

I don't think we've fully realized the power of this tool. We don't yet truly see that this road can take us to our destination. We as a peoole have been so mesmerized by the use of the Internet for entertainment, commerce, pleasure, etc. that we haven't fully comprehended that we hold the keys to our jail cell in our own hands.

And here's the key for me: *In order for the true picture of of the power of the Internet for social/political/economic/environmental transformation to become realized, more and more people will need to seek out / discover the information about what's really going on and what's possible. Not to oversimplify it, but for some, merely coming in contact with the truth about things is personally transformational and motivating. But how will we get more than the choir / usual suspects to visit the kinds of Internet sites that will give them that dose of reality and motivation?

I firmly believe the answer is direct action. In addition to achieving the direct result of pushing the corporation, agency or political body to change their behavior by putting serious and alarming injustice out into the light, direct action also raises awareness across our neighborhood, town, state or nation depending somewhat upon the number of people in the crowd, the creativity of the action and the magnitude of the problem being exposed. And that attention attracts some people to search for information. And they eventually end up on sites that really give them the big picture and remove the gauze of materialism and fake news from their eyes

I believe, then, that we have completely underestimated our ability to awaken thousands of millions of people. Many of us have felt like that awareness has a limit. It does not. The only limit on our ability to awaken millions and millions of people is the extent to which we are willing to participate in direct action. Our signs and chants out their in the streets don't have to say everything. But our presence and the creativity of our action gets people to seek information and then they land on the sites that really blow them away. First they're intrigued by the direct action (always nonviolent) and then they get blown away by the details that are being revealed to them for the first time in a new context outside the mainstream media.

It is of course also true that the mainstream media mostly can't ignore the larger and more creative protests especially when they expose something exceedingly dramatic and verifiable. In those instances, we -- the millions who have stepped outside the lies of corporate media - may have the biggest opportunity to awaken thousands and millions....because our information is coming right out of the box that they're familiar with. Of course corporate owned media twists things, but you saw on the Brooklyn Bridge last fall that the worldwide media picked up the story and so did national media because it was so dramatic...the number of people involved who were willing to be arrested, the iconic venue and the peacefulness of the protest all combined to create a compelling and powerful spectacle that simply couldn't be ignored. In this way, at times, we can turn the mainstream media into a tool as well. It might be helpful if more of our signs, banners and giant light shows at larger events had key websites on almost all of them in very large clear letters do the tv cameras would catch them now and then no matter how hard tet try not to. A banner hanging off a building or bridge that's iconic with a clever and compelling slogan and a website paired with a massive protest below with similar signs and banners could result in the ultimate of coups: the mainstream media advertising for alternative media.

The point is, we have the power in our hands to essentially change the channel. We have the tool (the web) and we have the means to direct major state, national and international attention to our information on the web. This is powerful stuff that King and Gandhi would have relished and once we wake up to the power of this combination of the web and direct action, we can begin to spread MUCH MUCH further the knowledge about what's really going on and whats really possible.

That's another amazing combination right there: the dose of reality and the dose of vision. A clear vision of what's possible is one of the most motivating forces on the planet, especially when it is paired with the truth of the present situation and means to transform it. As a wise person once said, there's nothing do powerful as an idea whose time has come.

The idea is here. And it's time has come. And we have the mechanism by which to set the wheels in motion. Let's do this.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Good morning therising.

Excellent. Web banner displayed at giant gatherings at monumental sites.

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I know it sounds "simple" but if the mainstream news cameras actually catch it (which will happen now and then) they will literally be advertising for alternative media! How cool would that be :)?

I think it's important that the website displayed be one that's approachable for non activists. If this revolution is going to happen, it needs to motivate Anericans who are all ages, races, religions etc. . I'm not saying to dumb down the message but I am suggesting it be written with the intended audience in mind. So, there would be a special website for the public for each action. There might also be a "hub" public website which contains short descriptions and links to each. If the housewife in Peoria, the truck driver passing through Houston, the teacher in upstate New York and the factory worker in Los Angeles all get motivated by the site, then we've succeeded in this particular aspect.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Good plan. Real news, the truth, for everyone worldwide.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

That and the Radio Occupy would be just splendid!

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I really hope this happens. I really want to see the word get out to expose the corruption for all to see and also show that another world is possible.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4464) 1 year ago

Every bit of truth disseminated around the world, adds to awareness, and increases the possibility of "another world".

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I like the way you put that. Even a few candles can light up a whole room :)

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Exactly. We cannot settle. We can't allow ourselves to be duped into this mindset where it appears that all is lost. It isn't. The power is in our hands dammit.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

REALIZE we have more in common

therising wrote: "Once we realize we have more in common than we have dividing us, we can make decisions from a position of united strength"

I describe in these posts, how what is most in common is defined acceptably and universally, which unites us in purpose.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/anti-nuke-is-pro-99/#comment-888826

http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-out-here-how-do-we-kick-this-baby-into-hig/#comment-890801

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895308

This makes us the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks for the links. Will check them out.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

You will see in one I think of a sequence of online petitions which manifest a wave of agreement completely separate from anything political except constitutional intent. By participating overtly, relating to our right to alter or abolish through Article V, we invoke our authority.

ON EDIT: Oops, forgot that one, here it is.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-the-page-at-link-below-is-the-most-importa/#comment-893836

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Not really convincing in my view. Not laid out clearly. Not sure what the mission of article V is. Can you please explain? What do proponents say? What do opponents say? Why are they wrong. The links just didn't lay it out clearly.

[-] 3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Defining constitutional intent is the difficult part, and the links show how we can do it and make it register socially in a way which can have indirect political value.

Article V is simply the codification of the right to "alter or abolish" abusive government. In reality congress has been treasonous against the constitution for 100 years, but the banks had and have the reins on commodity. Legally, technically Americans were due an Article V convention in 1911, and with free speech abridged, the constitutional Americans could not create unity. The dumbing down in 1912 assured that Americans would not be educated with their true pat and a great dea l more.

In 1911 2/3 of the states had applied BECAUSE they knew that the federal government was going to leave the gold standard and start working with fiat money. Unconstitutional.

Accordingly the last 100 years have been to prevent Article V because it is the one legal process that can be politically entered by the states citizens through their states which has total control over the federal government.

This page has most of the legal pros.

http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

The cons simply try to instill a fear of the constitution but have not been accountable to consider what Preparatory Amendment does to the convention. Here is my request to 2 women who are against Article V to be accountable by addressing what preparatory amendment does and how a simple, logical reasonable human agreement is something unique to me and no can understand it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-896428

The nwo HOPES we can't under stand it, 'cause then there is no unity, no opposition, and dhs just got there 450m rounds of 40 cal. and fema has lots of plastic casket casings.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

But I want a stronger government of the people, not a weaker government of the people. A stronger government would have prevented the 2008 financial crisis through stricter regulation. The deregulation of financial industry in prior years all the way back to Reagan helped create the environment in which the people could be taken advantage of.

[-] 4 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Me too. Constitutional means strong for us. I agree, but consider this.

Our government is infiltrated. The infiltrators are out to destroy the constitution. We stop that, and much of the issue you have is already gone and never coming back.

The good people in government that is infiltrated have to watch their backs. By providing a non partisan but deeply constitutional national coalition organized in states, to get states acting to enforce the constitution with Article V, the people can rightously test and make true those that hold offices.

Currently the good elements have nothing solid to adhere to socially. A group that rejects partisan politics but is squarely centered on the constitution, you know the old saying, "if the people lead the leaders will follow", is safe to align with because they properly align with fundamental constitutional rights and empower government that respects them while dispensing with the other kind.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'm still not sure I understand. Can you out it in terms for someone who is not familiar with it and is not political? How would you describe it to you grocery store check out person or bank manager in layperson's terms?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

There are constitutional mechanisms relating to a humans best instincts that are also rights and by slightly changing the constitution corrupt government can be stopped by citizens applying political pressure on their states.

To do this the citizens of the state must agree upon the intent of the constitution relating to the primary rights it guarantees then use that in majority in state voting to compel first states, then the federal government.

How 'bout dat?

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

The constitution guarantees rights and if the government does not follow it we have the right to alter or abolish. The legal mechanism to alter or abolish is Article V. 2/3 of the states must apply to congress and that has already happened and congress did not follow the law so all of are having problems. 3/4 of the states can over ride all of congress and the president to restructure the operating parameters of the federal government.

For 3/4 of the states to agree requires a period of massive communication for Americans in order to re understand constitutional intent, because any change to the constitution must have constitutional intent and THE PEOPLE are the only one that can rightfully do that.

The period of massive public communication is created by preparatory amendment which overcomes the intentional dumbing down and the manipulations of communications technology imposed on America for 60 years enabling Americans to form fundamental human agreement which follows natural law defining constitutional intent.

Once that has been done, then Article V can proceed properly and by citizens exerting whatever political pressure is needed on states legislations, the states will be compelled to enforce the federal constitution because citizens have revised areas to assure governmental operations are made constitutional.

Any better?

[-] 0 points by shooz (18014) 1 year ago

States?

They have enough trouble following their own constitutions.

Michigan being a prime example under the tyranny of Snyder.

Cleaning up the States would be a good place to start, but make sure they know and follow their own constitutions, as they are more bought off than the feds.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Exactly why citizens need to get constitutional and start shaking down their state governments. Duh!

[-] 0 points by shooz (18014) 1 year ago

Come to Michigan and show us how.

Demonstrate what this idea can do.

We need your help.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Does Michigan have citizens ready to discuss constitutional intent? If so, have them join here and put MICH-ART5 after their user name. Start a thread with that in the title and DEFINES CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.

I will join in and help guide them along the natural laws that they know instinctually, to the simple realizations of how that joins with constitutional intent.

[-] 1 points by shooz (18014) 1 year ago

Give them a tangible demonstration.

Give us all that demonstration.

That's what I'm asking for. Not more repetitions of the rhetoric.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think we should all support an amendment campaign that shows real promise for positive change going forward - it is also already in process and is limited to a single clean action - success there will be a step forward to continue the process for other issues - one at a time - clean and controlled.

People - support Move To Amend.

[-] 0 points by shooz (18014) 1 year ago

I understand that.

I'm trying to get this guy to commit to anything at all on a State level.

Snyder pissed all over 2 constitutions. State and federal.

I find it amazing that this guy can't tell me how.

Kinda like a bot.

Article 5 might be doable, but not by anything at this guy has posted yet.

All he's got so far is muddy rhetoric.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I know that you understand - I was just commenting to provide others the same view - that this individual has offered nothing - nothing that Move to Amend does not address cleanly clearly safely. So I replied to your comment as Move To Amend is real and not hypothetical like the individuals vague proposal to throw open the constitution for wholesale change.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

You cannot discuss constitutional intent, you can't even recognize constitutional rights. Step aside and call in a Michigonian that can.

[-] 0 points by shooz (18014) 1 year ago

The right wing judges already pissed all over that "constitutional intent" you like to say so often.

They did so at the behest of Snyder.

Do you even know what was done?

If not? Then it's you who should step aside, or find someone who does.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Can you explain to me what rayolite is talking about? I honestly don't get it. Just in a few sentences if you have a moment --- What is his or her overall point and what is the argument against his/her point?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Thanks. Will check this out.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

“The amount of tyranny you get, is the exact amount you put up with.”

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Gosh, I wish all Americans could realize the importance of that quote! :)

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Do you recall where that quote came from?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Thomas Jefferson

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Awesome. Thank you :)

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Quite true. But why do you think Americans have put up with so much of it for so long?

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I've wondered that myself. The best answer I came up with I found in the Declaration of Independence ................................................................

and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I also think the media has a lot to do with it too, because they spin the news, and create public opinion, keeping the people confused.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I think you're right on both counts. It's probably a combination of the two. And the fact that the mainstream media is owned entirely by 7 corporations makes that nihilism look less like an accident and more like an intentional assault on the senses.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Breaking up MSM conglomerates and your other points are well founded.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'm trying to imagine how we'd break up those conglomerates. Would reinstating the fairness doctrine do it?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I think that can be part of the right approach.

I heard one journalist state a big mistake was ever allowing commercials during the news. So I support that step, and separating news from entertainment business is necessary.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Right on. Wish Edward R Murrow were here to kick some ass.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He was a great one w/ integrity. I'm sure he dealt with pressure from mgmt even still. But he was strong and we don't really have that now.

This issue ain't even on anyones radar but the 1st thing for us to do is keep educating people, & agitating pols. Somethings gotta give.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Damn right. We can help make it give with strategic nonviolent direct actions :)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Those actions have the dual impact of pushing directly and bringing in more support by bringing the issue into the light, spreading the word. Nonviolent direct action is powerful stuff.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Occupy can make a difference.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I agree. I think it's already made a huge difference and will make even more of a difference soon. Last fall was just a warm up.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

The more I think about it, the more I'm shocked that we the public gave away our airwaves for free --- AND corporations are abusing that privilege we gave them AGAINST US. That's totally fucked up.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh definately. in return we can insist on a few basic public services, free independent news w/o commercials. i can think of more if I take some time.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

We have the leverage if we use it. Funny, the film Bulworth, humerous as it is, goes into this. Odd to realize the public has gotten a little bit of exposure through mainstream entertainment already. Minor but interesting.

I'll work too to think of more ways to push back and reclaim our public airwaves

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Every effort matters.

(great film btw)

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

My favorite line is the very last one in the film: "Be a spirit. Don't be a ghost." Perfectly sums up the difference between parroting the mainstream media talking points and sitting on the sofa VS. thinking for yourself and standing up for what's right. We need to trust and act on what's in our hearts.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Definitely, forgot that.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

You know, I watched a movie this past weekend called Bulworth with Warren Beatty. This clip ties in with this subject and it still applies today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCely_XDSDw

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Great film. I haven't seen it in forever. Just watched the clip you provided. Fabulous. And timely. Warren was brave to say all that, even in a movie.

I like that he also touched on one of America's biggest hang ups and methods for dividing the 99%: race. Once we figure out we have more in common with each other, we'll be strong as an ox!

Thanks so much for taking the time to read my post and provide this clip. Super cool.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Right! Democracy is not a right or left -- black or white issue. When we all realize that and unite, we'll have the upper hand and be able to make change. Cheers

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cheers to you as well

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'm excited for the future. I see real momentum out there. People are awakening.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It sure feels like we're at a precipice. I think the catalyst will either be the fiscal cliff deal or gun control.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I imagine it'll go in fits and starts on those and other issues until it finally hits the majority of Americans that, in some ways, this is all the same struggle. And the struggle is this: to remake our society such that the system prioritizes human needs over corporate needs. In order to do that, we'll need to realize that we have more in common than we have separating us. Once we do that, once we realize we are the 99%, we'll be able to make decisions from a position of unified strength rather than making demands from a position of divided weakness. After all, how long can 1% of the population keep the system rigged to just benefit themselves, especially when the other 99% know they're basically in the same boat environmentally and economically?

Let's usher in that new era and grease the wheels however we can. Unity is the key. It's the one thing the 1% fear most. Nonviolence is the other key. It absolutely confounds them and brings injustice into stark relief.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I absolutely agree with the two key points you made, I just think Americans will wake-up sooner. I'll admit that I've been wrong on that since the SCOTUS picked the prez in 2000, but do you think that remaking our society can be done from within our present system, or will it require a peaceful revolution?

“The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.”

~ Thomas Jefferson ~

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

My own view is that we have a very good system designed by the founders and that it has been temporarily hijacked by corporatists. I think we can unseat these hijackers by bringing their coup out into the light of day, showing that they've rigged the game. And I think we do this by getting the word out in two ways: via mainstream media (from nonviolent direct action events with great creativity and turnout) and by alternative media. With regard to alternative media, my view is that every direct action needs a website and that that website needs to be designed such that someone who is a factory worker, manager or home maker with their own busy lives can read it and connect with it. It needs to be approachable. And that web address needs to be prominently and clearly displayed on banners and every sign so that, no matter how hard the networks try, they can't have the cameras avoid that website.

If it sounds like I'm zooming back and forth between the on the ground view and the 30,000 ft view, that is intentional. I think that we need to be mindful of both.

We can do this. We have the power. http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-dont-see-the-power-we-have-in-our-hands-to-tran/ ------- http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-message-to-all-the-well-meaning-democrats-and-re/

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Yes, it does seem like you're zooming. I'm glad that "very good system" is working so well for you. It isn't working for most. I also think your ideas about the MSM are delusional. They will continue to do what they do so well ................... and that's Pump The Propaganda.

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust.

Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not suggesting that our system is functioning well right now at all. In fact, it is functioning quite poorly because it has been hijacked. Y view and the view of many though is that the hijacking doesn't imply the system is bad, just that the hijackers are. Once we get some common sense regulations in place to get the money out of politics, we'll have the ball rolling. But that's just a start of course.

I also think you have misunderstood what I said about the mainstream media. I'm not saying they aren't currently doing harm. What I am suggesting is that we a) find alternative means of spreading the truth about what is going on ( via direct action and alternative media and b) turn the megaphone of corporate media on its head at times by giving them no choice but to cover "our" events -- you saw that happen a lot last fall (Brooklyn Brisge for example).

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Now you have me watching the whole movie again :)

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

LOL Good !! It'll keep ya pumped up. That's the effect it had on me. I saw it last weekend, and couldn't get it out of my mind all week. Enjoy :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrRobSIeeC4

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Funny. This movie does stick in your head. I keep waiting for our politicians in an interview to somehow accidentally start speaking the truth. What a day it would be if they all started saying it plain like Bulworth :)

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I just bought the DVD. It would be a glorious day, if just one would speak the truth as he does ....................... but as in his case, they probably wouldn't live long either.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

The thIng is that the 1% can't have us all locked up or killed. For every 1 of them, there are 99 of us. Seems a little absurd that we haven't woken up to that fact and gotten a bunch of bulworths in congress. Whoever does run that is sincere will need serious serious political cover from us citizens . Have heard a few very well meaning great potential congressional candidates say that.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

GREAT scene. So fun. And true.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You were right. Can't get so many scenes from the film out of my head. Here's a link to a few more scenes from other films that fit right in with that: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/be-a-spirit-not-a-ghost-corporate-owned-mainstream/

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Thanx TR, I'll check them out :)

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cool. They're fun to see.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Can we think outside the existing narrative?

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Another world is possible. Don't believe the hype.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Holy crap!! While we're on the topic of pushing back against so-called austerity, Check THIS out!!!! The article and short video will make your day :) http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/iceland-shows-how-to-solve-economic-crisis

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

another world is possible and oddly enough it is achieved in a garden.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

This is really good stuff. The more I read the more intrigued I am.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

who would have thought that you could do so much in a garden. but if we can green deserts and alpine mountain passes just imagine what suburban lawns and vacant lots could become. just imagine what highway exit ramps could become. the entire landscape could be one giant food forest. it sounds like crazy hippy talk till you actually see it work. then it is like holy shit! i have been hoodwinked into believing a world like this is not possible but in a flash of realization you understand that in fact it is. and it is far easier to obtain than we ever realized. who would of thought ows best chance to overthrow the system and turn the status quo on it's head was in a garden.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

as you should be. it is the path that will solve so many of the worlds ills. i am not saying it will be perfect. that is not possible. but it can be a joy to wake everyday and to lay down your head every night. we need not live in this rat race. we need not prop up the system. we can create our own system. and when the walls come crashing down there we will be with our way of doing things and then the people will want to join us in mass.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

a compelling approach -- another world truly is possible. What you're suggesting is that we follow Gandhi's mindset -- to be the change we want to see in the world.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

well of course. people have to see it works. they won't buy a thing if they can't see that it works. i believe all the other change we want too see will emanate from it. if you can feed and house people then you can get people to emotionally invest in the good things we want as a society. once people are emotionally invested it is mother fucking on like donkey kong. there is nothing you can't accomplish.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You should do a separate new post on this. - - This comment is one of the more important ones on this forum. Key concept. The permaculture AND the "feed, clothe, house them and they'll be paying attention" thing. I would love to see you get these two messages out in a way that a layperson could get into it and understand. To me it seems really important. I would be happy to discuss with you over there on brand new post so many can see. I'll be your first layperson commenter. Certainly is the truth. This is all new to me.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Damn, that is so true. That is an excellent way to look at it. Feed, clothe and house people and they will pay attention.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

who woulda thought? lol.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

:) :)

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

now lets go grow an army!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Interesting. Care to elaborate?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

have you heard of permaculture?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I have heard the word but that's about it. What's the gist of it?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

using these techniques we can transform the planet.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

the gist is we can solve many of the worlds problems in a garden. permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor. It teaches us how build autonomous homes, grow our own food, restore diminished landscapes and ecosystems, catch rainwater, build communities, green the desert and much more. Greening the Desert II- Greening the Middle East https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ra89Y3WefQ Coverting Ethiopian Desert into Hyper-Productive Land https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEM6DCTK3Y Farming with Nature - A Case Study of Successful Temperate (Alpine) Permaculture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6-xh34ovA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Enjoying these links. Lots to learn here.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

cool i am glad. this is important information and it needs to be spread. once you know these things it becomes obvious how easy it could be to solve so many of the worlds problems in a garden. IN A MOTHER FUCKING GARDEN!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Any other documentaries you would recommend that relate?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0ylk4sU5M Natural Farming with Masanobu Fukuoka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bar82jvGvPE&list=PL165A6E3BA001F821&index=2 Holzer, Sepp - Aquaculture - Synergy of Land and Water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIL9hWW3-Q&list=PL165A6E3BA001F821&index=3 TEDxWarwick - Charlie Price - Aquaponics - Getting More out of Less http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXVnAMQRGbI "Permaculture Trio" -- Forest Gardening, Edible Landscapes & Urban Permaculture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdsy8E2J1is Solving All the World's Problems - in a Garden http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJMgfKqKXwY Farm for the Future http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8JNXHcBMA 300% Increase in Agricultural Income on 8.6 Million Acres - Loess Plateau in China http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlPj3iUhfgc 2000 Year Old Food Forest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keQUqRg2qZ0 Permaculture Behind Greening the Desert with Geoff Lawton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhDoP4BOTAE Bill Mollison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddekwA23dk , Sepp - Farming with Terraces and Raised Beds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVqGtgDHBo&list=LLWRTEvkC--TpJ7m24MXfl6w&index=57 Edible City: Grow the Revolution

you can pretty much just youtube Masanobu Fukuoka Sepp Holzer Geoff Lawton tons of videos then just branch out and check this out to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMJwIedrWU&list=LLWRTEvkC--TpJ7m24MXfl6w&index=14 Garbage Warrior http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiWcI5NJo8 Earthship Biotecture A 2011 Overview

course we don't have to limit ourselves to recycled materials thats not practical for a whole society probably anyways but its pretty obvious we don't need the utility companies or big agriculture. how do you think the elites feel about that? people have been tricked into believing this life is the only way. it is so fucked up because a better way is right there to be had. do you think maybe we should go out side and literally pick it off the tree? is it ripe enough yet?

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Yes it is ripe for the picking, although many times it seems people sit and watch tree grow fruit-let it ripen-fall off and rot while complaining about their poor health. How to assist in this common mind-set remains a challenge indeed though We are ready.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

yes it is ridiculous is it not.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Now we have the stronger flu thanks the ounce of prevention many have allowed to be crammed down their throats/shot w/sharp needle wherever they stick it. What about the part of nobody going to a doctor getting well.them, As we instead watch them fall and rot while complaining about our ails. Let us get this military to deliver some goods to those suffering in their own country because they were minding their own and we bombed them-killed family-ruined all they knew or tortured them because they will not play right and pretend that it is okay or help get survivors i.e. the rest of family and friends whom have escaped this terrible fate. Not in the name of these United States on my behalf.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I clearly have some research to do this weekend. Thanks for the links!

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

enjoy!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I definitely will! Thanks :)

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Sounds beautiful. I'll check out all these links today. Thank you :)

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

once you find out about it you will see how important these concepts are. they are the answers.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Cool. Can't wait to check them out. Thanks for sharing this info. Perhaps you should do a whole post on this so everyone can see.

[Removed]

[Removed]