need more details
I sensed a huge gap in annabell’s story for which I have seen no explanation. Daniel Wade became president and a battle ensued between Wade and congress…illustrated by the intrigue involving the Senator from Massachusetts. (I used to have a T shirt with a peace sign on it…a lot less painful). It was said that the neocheating congress was losing it’s grip on the American psyche because of the many improvements resulting from Wade’s policy initiatives which led to the eventual “great replacement”. The problem is, the President has no authority to carry out these initiatives without the consent of Congress! His budget proposal would be rejected and, as I recall, only a 2/3 majority is required to override his veto of congress’ budget proposal. I find this oversimplification of the replacement process very troubling, just as I am troubled by the notion that the first attempt to transplant the head of a dissabled man onto a clone of himself, which failed, would result in a kind of global epiphany (10 second miracle), suddenly altering everyone’s attitude regarding the sanctity of conscious life. It might be easier to build and fly a silent running, fusion powered spacecraft to another star than it is to elect a filibuster proof majority to congress, but this, it seems will be necessary for us to succeed. Further, as mentors, we need to define key terms like initiatory force and protection before we can be taken seriously. I agree, prime law is the key to our making progress as a civilization, but so far, we’re not selling it effectively! For example, who will finance, plan, acquire land etc. for the much needed future high speed transportation system to service the northeast corridor? Eisenhower viewed the interstate highway system as a national defense related measure. Is this force or protection? Can any private interest accomplish this on it’s own? Who’s going to manage the rebuilding of our electrical grid? Is legal council for civil claims a part of protecting contracts, or will it still be available only to a privileged few who can afford it? Will these questions be tied up in the courts for decades to come because of the ambiguity of prime law? BTW, if I could get the forum to respond when I click on it I would post these questions there. You have my permission to post this there if you can. ps, once again, as much as I want to, there is no place on this page to chat with Jocqui…as always. Finally, if we are to sign an agreement to uphold the principals of prime law, will this prevent us as potential govt. officials from compromising to achieve those short term measures that could ultimately improve things enough to convince the country to support the prime law amendment? Will our hands be tied by this agreement as we work to implement this change? Baby steps are usually necessary to achieve fundamental change. Will some part of a sensible short term compromise that yields somewhat to the opposition, even if it’s purpose is to ultimately succeed in replacing external authority with prime law cause us to be disowned by the TVP? I want to be prepared to answer these and countless other questions as I work to gain the confidence of prospective TVP members. I need to know the official position on these questions!
