Conyers points DU toward Sensenbrenner [View All]

[darkworkz]

In this article http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=567 Representative Conyers tell us that it is Chairman Sensenbrenner that attention should be focused on. Read this quote from the article:

"Conyers: I don't expect them to fully support it. All I have to do is persuade chairman Sensenbrenner that it is in all of our best interests and that he support it because he can unilaterally grant the hearings."

Ok, let's pause at this point and expand the picture to get a broader view of the landscape. This will help with the context in which Conyers makes the above statement.

For four years the neoCons have held a death grip, so to speak, on the MSM. Most can agree upon that. Some believe that this hold has been due to some short sightedness on the part of the MSM and nothing more.

It is said that fewer than 50 people control all of the MSM in the U.S. This is done through cross pollinated boards of directors. This small group of people dictate what does and does not reach the print, radio, and television. If the above is true then what portion of the administrations actions are they not aware of? If the above is true then not only are they aware of the actions but have consciously withheld information from the "consuming" public. If these things are fact, and I'm not saying they are, then how can information sent to the MSM educate them on what they already know?

Next lets delve into power; who has it now and do they know how to use it? Well, base upon the visible cracks in the now recognized MSM "blindness" veil, and how those cracks came about, the obvious answer would be the "people". How, in the briefest space possible, can this be proven? One could say Boxers statements were proof. One could also say the MSM talking heads statements at the inauguration - referencing the two separate crowds size and visible disapproval of the inaugurie. Also, there was the matter of the election contest. All of these "break throughs" came about through the direct action of the "people". So that's a strong indicator that the power now rests with the people.

If the power does indeed rest with the people, wouldn't that indicate a rapid shift and explain some of the remarks and actions from those that used to have it?

Looking once again at the media. Why would you want to educate someone that has proven to not work in your best interest? If you do have the power wouldn't you want to exercise it in a way that brings those things that you want, and like, back into some order that you can recognize?

Think of it like this - let's say you've got an unruly child. The child is constantly acting up. You've got a couple of options, you can a) let the child continue with the unruly behavior (b) punish the child thus forcing him/her to understand that your not pleased with the action and your correction, in the end, alters the behavior.

But how you may ask, can you punish the MSM yet still get your message out? Well change the focus of your approach to them. You could stop speaking to them (no editorials). Cancel subscriptions. Send them a final message that you no longer watch their channel until they do X. And this will force them to get their information from the true target that you're after. Which we'll get to in just a moment.

Now comes the issue of "how to wield power". There are a ton of good ideas going around right now. What to do. How to do "it". Who to contact. So forth and so on. What quite a few have neglected in the rush of new strength, is figure out timelines. In other words - what do you want done and how soon do you want it to happen?

Let's say you want 3 things (just examples): 1 - environment 2 - economy 3 - * out of office. 3 good things in the minds of most. Well first you should figure out which you want first, so we'll organize them from "need done right now" to "ASAP". So we'll say that #3 is "need done right now". Fine. How do you use the power you've got to do that? Do you send letters to the MSM? Do you drive to the local union hall and have a meeting? Or do you figure out who in the structure that he's (*) in that holds the keys to unseating him? I think it's that last one, you be the judge. So if this is the case that should be the target of focus, right?

After a long journey we finally get back to the Conyers interview. Conyers mentions Sensenbrenner by name twice and once as chairman of the committee in the article. Conyers states that he's sending the chairman a letter requesting full committee hearings on the Ohio matter. Well what's so important about Ohio? (Sure, I know this is a stupid question) In the Judiciary committee the Ohio matter is the first step toward impeachment, if you didn't know. The Ohio matter is being held up by very weak players (i.e. Ken Blackwell) that have direct connections to *. If the Judiciary committee breaks through in Ohio that is a very short path to the steps of the White House. And a few guys whose names I won't mention here getting new suites, color orange, evicted with new fashion accessories.

Sure, the filibuster of 2 * appointees is great! More noise = more MSM coverage. But remember how it's breaking through on them. It's not coming from you, it's coming from the "top" down on them and they have to "report" it. So change the game. Come from the top down all the time. Go around them, hit the people they "have" to cover and then they'll have to publish the facts.

Sorry about that - The issue is focus the attack on the "weakest link". If Conyers is writing a letter to Sensenbrenner requesting hearings on Ohio, why not you? Mind you this doesn't mean stop sending letters to (insert name of kick ass progressive) but learn to focus on that point that helps you achieve the end you need done "now"! If you send that "focal point" the same letter week in and week out, what's the big deal? As long as the message is received loud and clear is the issue.

Before concluding this post I'd like to point out something that a few might not know. You've heard politicians say quite a bit about polls? Well polls are the only way, for the past 2 decades, that politicians have had to gage public interest or reaction toward the actions they might take. One of the reasons this is the case is the death of the party "machines" in the late 70's early 80's. The city block, district, city, county, state, political machines that once ran politics in the USA all but disappeared in that time. The replacement was commercials and NPO's that did / do...what? Most don't know. What you're doing now is recapturing the power aspect that the machine once exercised and you're doing it directly, sans intermediary. Only thing you've got to learn is how to focus, and once you do you'll be amazed how fast the things you want to happen, happen.