Forum Post: Possible solutions and ideas that could help the cause...
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 2:23 a.m. EST by ComplexMissy
(291)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Is this the solution we need? .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo&feature=relmfu
And, comments about the Wall Street occupation, interesting points, different ways of approaching: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=TygmRhS3Zos&feature=uploademail
you can also tell me here
on my blog
http://blog.richardkentgates.com/
or just the form
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dFlNNHJTRlZwMWs5ZjlhTWN0NlZReHc6MQ#gid=0
ComplexMissy, I've been trying to figure how to unify across divided groups to revive the strongest thing we know in our interest, the constitution. So, for this cause to succeed in addressing the issues, I recomend doing something that every American should understand.
Article V is our first constitutional right. Every single we can think of can potentially addressed through article V which is how this republic is democratically controlled. Congress is afraid of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."END Somebody asked for a numbered list of the steps in the strategy I've developed for using Article V. 1) Movement consolidates demand for Article V. 2)Citizens supporters in states create ballot intiatives or demonstate in demand at state offices and capitals to get legislators to apply to congress for an Article V. 3) Congress begins to convene delegates. Guarding the citizens voice, and ability to share then form quality opinion, with some uniformity to be tested, only the First Amendment is accepted for revision or amendment by the public because the movement has warned them away from all but the 1st amendment and elections. 4)While this is happening an interim proposal for amendment is made regarding election systems to assure that the vote will be properly taken and counted. 5) Citizens decry any accelerated amendments which may be in corporate interests, nwo interests, etc. BEFORE the First Amendment is revised giving national mass media to activist interests that can show their proposals for information meet the criteria for public support on national level. Paint them as corporate attempts to do again what they already did with 50 years of extremely manipulative, deceptive and exploitive media dividing and disabling Americans from unifying in support of the constitution. 6) Ratification elections in states take place and AFTER Article V is used to make certain that speech needed for survival is shared and understood, http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html revision of the 1st amendment, then national media is used perhaps 4 nights a week for 1 to 2 hours of primetime tv to expose the entire hijacking of constitutional government. This educates the citizens to the point where their appreciation of what has happened compels them to unify properly and be prepared for survival through a wider, set of amendments dealing with economy, environment, immigration etc. 7)Following the education of America, about a year maybe, delegates are reconvened to review a newly created structure of amendments that undo all the unconstitutional aspects inserted over the last century or so. The informed public will have vetted the proper insertion of amendment to reduce the amount of amendment putting fears of rampant amendment to rest. Voters will ratify and the nation focuses on economic recovery.
Try giving that to a crowd or mass of people with very specific and varying views of what this country should look like.
Perhaps something a bit simpler and more easily unifying.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-central-message-we-need/
Actually, it works really well, and I've done it. We can never let go of some ideals, and many people recognize that, despite their varying views. What I've done is taken election reform and coupled it with the needed information for people in the democracy to make proper, informed decisions. The info first and the election reform next, together which is proper sequence. Election reform without this is only 1/2 of the program. "only the First Amendment is accepted for revision or amendment by the public because the movement has warned them away from all but the 1st amendment and elections."
That is not a rally cry though brother. Its a lecture. Its an instructional video or research project.
I'm not saying election reform is the endgame. I'm also not even planning on this movement sustaining itself beyond one or a handful of broad but significant victories. Remember it has separate bases within it that seek to have their own policy matters put into effect. Should this be a good tool by which they can do it that is grand, but in terms of even the general public, they will need to see positive, easy to understand change come out of this.
Hmmmmm, I see it as strategy. A rally cry needs to be understood before that cry. Strategy begs for discussion, interaction then approval, acceptance. At that point the rally cries come out for use in unifying those that understand WHY they need to rally. From a point I assert is logical, I see that the information the public uses in elections is as critical as the systems recording the vote. The systems are easier to deal with than the people, which is why they are corrupted. The people are too, but they can change themselves with some awareness and alternative, truthful information in a social setting that is discerning of all of the factors. For example: If Article V were to become a national focus, and 34 states applied anew for an Article V, and congress did not call a convention, Americans can demonstrate at military bases asking for military intervention into an infiltrated and unconstitutional government. Accordingly the movement to see an Article V has some serious teeth whereas OWS, the way it is, cannot even summon strategy that integrates with law, only lots of common sense aspects completely embraced by citizens. So OWS has created an important body of awareness for specific changes, the fact that there is no viable overall strategy for gaining the authority to manifest change is the sad part.
Those sound like very good steps to take. How do we get these things accomplished?
The first step is a human problem of behavior. I'm quite certain that none of the younger protesters know about Article V for a reason. Universities did not teach anything about it and political study became socialism. General awareness of how to approach government is not too functional. Here are basic steps and you will see that the process above is similar but specific and more complex. A)Note problem and find specific law related to official control over problem. Notify local authority of problem and cite law. B)Standard period for contract law is 45 days. Time to begin demanding they recognize and follow the law. C)Look for law that applies to neglect to following first law, notify, escalate demands, seek higher authority to enforce law, notify of problem, etc. escalate public information. OKAY, some people can see that this will work if a majority of people in the movement understand that it is the way our system works, if it is going to work. Since no one knows about it, the system has not been getting worked by citizens but more by attorneys and professionals. Now the governmental problem has grown from neglect of citizens exerting proper control. Media and academia are fully responsible in the large measure for this. All we need to do is compensate by explaining that the Article V effort is the ABC's on steroids:) But a real simple thing is that free speech will have it's vital meanings. EVERYONE knows what a problem the media is. There is NO WAY, even with election reform that the public can vote properly. The information is far too manipulated by money interests and formation of opinion is almost non existent. The young protesters need to know what the usenet was. We are talking a fairly basic education into critical aspects that are seriously neglected for whatever reason. About now the protesters are realizing the momentum is slowing, and that it is mostly from the lack of a feasible unified strategy for change. Well, I think I've outlined totally feasible steps generally. It's all about getting it out and finding a few authoritys of law, natural law, psychology perhaps and politics to review specific aspects then compile the basic opinions on them from the different strategic perspectives. Crossing bridges is important. The tea party should be confrontable on this matter, OWS might be the perfect entitiy to do it. Now that's news! There is some related posting here. http://occupywallst.org/forum/from-the-tea-party/#comment-63804 No leadership is a problem in communicating strategy, which is why the movement is all issues and no strategy. Authorities of academia are generally fearful of confirming wide reaching strategy. This forum is about 80% diluted with infiltration, so I'm not sure where on the web sharing of strategy can be done effectively by the group which has an agenda simply open to success.
I hope we can keep this up, stay informed and educate ourselves in the process so we're better equipped to handle all these problems. What you've outlined is pretty overwhelming to me right now but maybe I'm just tired...
Hi ComplexMissy, I made a another post in clarification for someone about article v that include the text and a link to a ,gov site on the constitution.--
In human terms it is majority control over the operation and principles of the republic, or the constitution that carries the principles. It is every Americans first constituional right.
Please ask for more explanation if you need it.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article. V.
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.------
Most important, is that Truth be shared so the democratic action by the public can form quality decisions for voting, then the election system needs reform. We can do anything.
ComplexMissy, I found a thread that has a close focus with an OP who has some historical knowledge that curiously, ONLY logically, indirectly identifies Article V as a form of rebellion. Good place to start. Here is a copy of the post. It's consistent with the strategy I've explained, slightly different perspective that might make it easier. http://occupywallst.org/forum/thomas-jefferson-is-on-our-side/ POST- TIOUAISE, You must have intended to refer to Article V when using a quote with the word "institutionalized". TIOUAISE wrote: "Occasional conventions were envisioned by many of the country’s founding generation of leaders to be a sort of institutionalized avenue toward THE IDEAL OF REVOLUTION EVERY TWENTY YEARS, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson. According to Samuel Williams of Vermont (1743-1817), it was to be the means to accomplish periodic constitutional adaptation to changing times.”END- WHAT IF; there was a doctrine of natural law, chopped up and partially included in the Declaration, then later, more cut out and placed in the Bill of rights, and this was self evident when the missing parts are recombined with what is carried by our social contract? There is still 70% more still unknown that has exactly that status. What it means is that free speech is not enough to assure that communication are adequate to see that vital speech for survival is shared and understood. The doctrine logically provides fixed criteria which engages public support for speech that reasonably qualifies with priority recognized by moderate numbers of citizens signing petitions. The corporate media will never expose secrets faithfully, but it can deal somewhat IF the public already knows. That is what I'd propose for revision of the first amendment at Article V because the misleading of the people by media is a tragic thing. That is logically followed by election reform. Info then decision.
Sadly, the lack of authority on constitutional issues has created a vacuum of understanding of how Article V works. The tea party should be focusing on such matters but appears to be subterfuge. It's about time OWS starts asking if the tea party actually stands for the constitution as is implied. Given the difficulty of any other form of widespread change, working with the constitution is by far the most available method. Accordingly for each American seeking to support and defend, a period of education is needed, unfortunately, which is very strange, no authoritys are standing up to verify constitutional, legal strategy. This page has some of the best basic links I've found over the years. foavc.org has resources that are well researched. Perhaps a group should be formed here around the potential of seeing demands met by working with the constitution. What is realy nice, is that when doing that, interpreting the fairly simple language, we can gain a surety of its meaning by our group perceptions of meanings. A group that is using critical thinking in discussion can create informed opinions quickly when dealing with the meanings of a document. Your persistence in developing an understanding of how workable this is, how its intended to be that way in the constitution, is very appreciated.
I'm not trying to "sell" it, just thought it deserved some thought. I can't promote anything for sure, I'm just trying to be flexible and consider many options. If we can't imagine a different sort of future for ourselves then it will be difficult to move forward and make progress in a certain direction. Perhaps it would be helpful to have an idea of where we're going, so in that sense it may be important to discuss a resource based economy. And I'm starting to believe that a monetary-based economy is not a sustainable one at all. Here is a video where that idea is discussed a bit more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRVRbpJMP0
I believe that a resource based economy is a truly innovative idea, but I don't think we're ready to talk about it yet. Rather than trying to sell a resource based economy, I think this movement would get a lot more attention if we were fighting for a sustainable economy.
I have to agree, resource based is too sophisticated for the populations to accept at this time. Simply getting to a "sustainable economy" is a good start. Going after that with an Article V convention is highly functional, . . . which explains WHY no one knows anything about it. The nwo infiltration of American government made sure that it was not taught in schools and universities.------
Theft is identified by what is missing.
What if we're missing the real issues and neglecting to deal with the root problems because we are so entrenched in our way of thinking about government and economy? Maybe we need to question everything we think we know, everything our parents taught us? Maybe we need to decide what our true values are? Maybe we need to re-define our idea of "success"?
I don't know... don't discount the ideas just because you don't like the presenter. And, from what I've seen, The Venus Project clearly lays out a lot of serious answers. Putting negative labels on ideas like this is not exactly helpful. You don't have to join up with the "cult", but perhaps some of the ideas are valid and worth implementing somehow? All we can do is try something new, try a different approach. It's clear that what we're doing now is not working for most of us....
unfortunately, no, because the venus project is a cult and is fascist and totalitarian and does not have any serious answers. a resource based economy is a great idea, such would have to be redefined using systems and game theory instead of ignorant pipe dreaming by a wingnut egotist.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166045203446977#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166045203446977#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=164880556896775
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166045203446977#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=164925133558984
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166045203446977#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=164876403563857
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166045203446977#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=164879390230225