Ruling by the Supremes

[Peter Lemkin]

I think Peter's point about needing to just 'survive' is valid. Protest and non-violent massed energy isn't likely when jobs are missing, cash is disappearing, etc. And while I'd like to think that amendment is an answer, the forces against amendment have the upper hand because of the decision, and because they have bought Congress on K Street. The ideas of renunciation and withdrawal in Sharp's 198, disobedience ... to, as one fellow put it, "give up entirely trying to cooperate in any way with whatever they are doing, planning, requiring, legislating, or otherwise bringing to your doorstep and see if you can coalesce a few friends and neighbors into a viable conversation about sustainability, life after the collapse, local-ness, how to grow food, and who on earth should moderate that discussion".

But one of their main motivations to remove everyone's security, money, savings, equity, etc. was TO CONTROL THEM WITH INSECURITY - instead of a social security system, we have an asocial insecurity system! We can't let the bastards win!