The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Not sure if you guys have found this yet but here it is.

I think it's a great idea and should be supported.

Support Popular Vote

Basically the person with the most votes should win.

That would be true in a pure Democracy, but not necessarily so in a Republic, which is what the USA is. The Founding Fathers specifically set up the Electoral College to ensure that all states, both large and small, would have a say in the outcome of an election. Many states (48 in fact) have bastardized the Founding Fathers' intent, however, by allowing a "winner take all" mentality. Under such a system, let's suppose that Barry's Electors capture 35% of the vote, Ron Paul captures 34% running as an independent, and Romney captures 31% as the Republican candidate. Under this scenario, a populous state like California, which has 55 electors, would award all 55 Electors to Barry, and thus the votes that Ron Paul had actually won would not count at all. To be fair, Electors should be chosen based upon the Congressional Districts of the states, as is done in Nebraska and Maine (my state). Maine has two Congressional Districts, and depending upon the outcome of the election the Electors can go to one candidate or two. Thus, if Ron Paul receives the majority of votes in one Congressional District, but Obama or Romney has the majority of votes in the other District, each will get two Electors (Maine has 4 Electors). Anything less than this is unfair, as the "winner take all" method can easily throw an election to a candidate who wins a majority in the 7 most populous states - California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio, even though that candidate might lose the election if the Electors were chosen by the Congressional District method.

Whatever is done (if anything) to make elections more fair, the place to start is by eliminating vote fraud in every way possible. This means doing away with electronic and mechanical voting methods and electronic vote tallying and reporting, purging voter registration lists of all deceased individuals, and requiring proper identification be shown by each voter before voting. All voting should be on paper ballots which are marked by the voter, and all ballots should be hand counted and verified by election officials, party representatives, and citizen "watchdog" group representatives to ensure the count is correct and fair. There are several weeks between voting day and inauguration day, and we don't need to know the results the day after an election. As you can see, if we don't do everything possible to clean up the election process then it really doesn't matter if we elect by Electoral College or popular vote, as none of us can be assured that our vote will actually count (unless, of course, we vote in the original jurisdiction government elections, and vote by content notarized ballot mailed by return receipt).

[aljhoa]

Personally, I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and address a # of issues. I think its long overdue.

Constitutional Convention of what?

That would be true in a pure Democracy, but not necessarily so in a Republic, which is what the USA is. ......or popular vote, as none of us can be assured that our vote will actually count (unless, of course, we vote in the original jurisdiction government elections, and vote by content notarized ballot mailed by return receipt).

Al

[dutchdivco]

Well, you know

A Constitutional Convention, where representatives from each state attend, and look at a variety of issues where amendments MIGHT be appropriate, to the Constitution, either to remove any possible ambiguity or question of original intent, OR to address issues NOT covered in the Constitution, or to take into account changes which have occured during the last 200 years.

For instance, SOME (not me, and most recent rulings TEND to indicate not the SCOTUS) but some think the Right to bear arms is less than absolute, because of its mention of militias. Does the right to Life, as in Life, Liberty and Happiness apply to the 'Unborn', as examples.

I'd personally like to see a serious look at the Commerce Clause, which I feel has been used as an excuse for a massive overreaching of Federal Power, on many fronts.A serious examination of States rights would be in order, as well.

For instance, what do we do when the Federal Government reserves unto itself the enforcement of certain laws, but then adopts policies of non-enforcement, while maintaining the laws 'on the books', especially when said refusal or abdication of its responsibilities results in increased expenses and 'damage' to the States, which are prohibited from enforceing the law themselves???

Anyway, it ain't going to happen, so its really mute.

Rick; I agree with your comments on proportional representation at the electoral college, I didn't realise SOME states had that, and some didn't. I also just learned from the recent coverage, that not ALL primaries and caucuses will have proportional representation, for 2012. Florida's Repub primary is a 'winner take all' with 50 delegates at stake.Bummer.

Yes, we DO need to 'clean up' the election process, at the polling place. I saw numerous 'gaps' in the system, when I was a poll worker in 2004.

This was 4 years after the contentious hanging chads, etc. 2000 election, and I naively went in assuming that after all that, and all the attention, that every state would have 'fixed' there voting system, so as to make sure THEY weren't in the National spotlight like florida was in 2000.

Needless to say I was disabused of this notion!The arguments AGAINST requiring voters to show ID I find particularly odorous, as well as diengenous.

It DOES occur to me, that in those states where the argument that it disenfranchises or unfairly burdens the poor, we could adopt the system the Arabs came up with; the dip your finger in Purple ink, so you CAN'T vote more than once. I DO like the simplicity of it.

Unfortunately, nither party wants a truly clean system, and THEY have a lot of influence.Most of the responsibility for operating the polls is on the State; on the one hand, thats good, as local officials are responsible. On the other hand, they may not spend the kind of $, or effort necessary, to keep it 'clean'.

Anyway, no doubt there is a LOT of gaming of the system going on, from what I saw.And there are vested interests in keeping the system where they can game it.

Interesting point, your absolutely right; in this instant era, there is absolutely no need to know the outcome, election night. Could take 2 weeks or more, to make sure it is transparently and correctly counted. Look how Santorum got screwed, in Iowa.Jim

[rickoff]

Interesting point, you're absolutely right; in this instant era, there is absolutely no need to know the outcome, election night. Could take 2 weeks or more, to make sure it is transparently and correctly counted. Look how Santorum got screwed, in Iowa.Jim

Yes, there was a fellow watching the goings on at an Iowa location and he said that the number of votes reported for Romney were about 20 more than the actual number of votes. Since the initially reported spread between Romney and Santorum was just 8 votes, this would mean that Santorum was actually 12 votes ahead of Romney. In another Iowa location, as I reported earlier, the lights went out for more than a minute just after the paper ballots were collected. How convenient a "coincidence" for someone who had those ballots in hand at the time and wanted to substitute some earlier prepared ballots. My guess is that Santorum wasn't the only one who got screwed in Iowa. Maybe Ron Paul didn't really place third, but would have won if the voting was clean and counted properly. Here's a video link showing the results of an MSNBC TV Iowa poll in which Ron Paul topped the candidate list with 28% of those polled, in comparison to Romney at 18%. We'll never know what the true vote count was, of course, but we do know there were some very questionable goings on.

[dutchdivco]

And again

This is the kind of thing that has been going on for many years, in both primary and general elections, and it is done by BOTH parties.(The kind of thing I saw, first hand, as a 'pollworker'.)

Unfortunately constant vigilence is required, as there are always those that will game the system.Whatever rules you develop, they will attempt to exploit loopholes, or find ways around them.

My impression is that the people behind Romney are particularly adept at this kind of stuff, and I'm sure BO's supporters will also be busy, registering dead people, illegal aliens, etc.Its enough to make me sick! Jim

[Aaron]

Enhance quietly forces the U.S. to Indian

Zougla online - Ενισχ�ουν αθό�υβα τις δυνάμεις τους οι ΗΠΑ στον Ινδικό

Translated this to English with Google Translate.

Enhance quietly forces the U.S. to Indian

First registration: Saturday, January 28, 2012, 11:28

Great concentration of forces there in two islands of Socotra and Masirah concentration which reaches 2003 levels when the U.S. had invaded Iraq and is expected to peak until next February.

The island of Socotra is located in the homonymous archipelago of Socotra-also known as Soqotra-and is the largest island of the complex consists of 4 islands. Located about 240 km from the Horn of Africa and 380 km south of the Arabian Peninsula.

The second Masirah Island lies 95 km off the eastern coast of Oman Occupying width of about 14 km and an area of 649 sq.km.

These two islands, the U.S. maintains bases were used as points of concentration of troops during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, reports indicate that there is a momentum aviation with aircraft landing on an almost daily basis, carrying troops from the large base keep the U.S. in the Pacific is of Diego Garcia some 3000 km further away.

Estimates of special mention that these two islands, until the end of February will have accumulated approximately 50,000 men, who in conjunction with already 50,000 already in the region, will raise the total U.S. forces to 100,000 number that existed in the invasion of Iraq.

While at least 15,000 men developed recently in Kuwait, a move the Pentagon showing that awaits if war, an all-out fight with Iran. Meanwhile, officials from the Philippines located in the U.S. for talks with U.S. military leaders addressing the issue of increased U.S. military presence in the region.

Although the discussions referred to the relevant post in the Washington Post, however, the talks are expected to reach an agreement soon. Although the reason for the increased military presence, the U.S. maintains a large in the Philippines Subic Bay Naval Base-apparently intended as compensation for the corresponding presence of China One does not exclude the participation of those forces when deployed in theater in the Philippines business in Iran.

Besides the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln before arriving in the Gulf was in Taflandi enrolled in the Pacific Fleet.

Finally at least 78,000 men of the U.S. armed forces moved in last week within the U.S. and particularly in California. Although not confirmed this report shows up to a point a general redeployment of U.S. forces, both in the Arabian Sea and the Pacific region by the same U.S..

Regarding the U.S. naval preparations and France maintain four aircraft carriers during this period in the Gulf USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Carl Vinson, USS Enterprise and the Charles de Gaulle.

[aljhoa]

Constitutional Convention of what?

A Constitutional Convention, where representatives from each state attend, and look at a variety of issues where amendments MIGHT be appropriate, to the Constitution, either to remove any possible ambiguity or question of original intent, OR to address issues NOT covered in the Constitution, or to take into account changes which have occured during the last 200 years.

The first Constitution was the original draft which featured no Amendments. The second was the original Constitution joined with the Bill of Rights, which became the first 10 Amendments, and to which the 11th, 12th, and original 13th Amendments were added. The third Constitution, the bastardized one, is more commonly referred to as the U.S. Constitution. The District of Columbia was the name given to the corporation formed by the Organic Act of 1871, and that corporation was operated by the US government until the 1916 election year. After that, the lawful, original jurisdiction US government ceased to exist, and those running the corporation were only Corporation U.S. officers. Then in 1944, with the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corporation U.S. was given over to control under the International Monetary Fund, and became a foreign owned corporation.

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to accomplish similar objectives", including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known today as "One Form of Action."

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.

By the middle 1960's, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President John F. Kennedy was killed.

Who Is Running America?

Al

[Bizzy]

Hi Aaron,
It sounds like the military is planning a trip to Iran.
Lock and load!
Bizzy

Zougla online - ΕνισχÏ�ουν αθόÏ�υβα τις δυνάμεις τους οι ΗÎ*Α στον Ινδικό

Translated this to English with Google Translate.

Enhance quietly forces the U.S. to Indian

First registration: Saturday, January 28, 2012, 11:28

Great concentration of forces there in two islands of Socotra and Masirah concentration which reaches 2003 levels when the U.S. had invaded Iraq and is expected to peak until next February.

The island of Socotra is located in the homonymous archipelago of Socotra-also known as Soqotra-and is the largest island of the complex consists of 4 islands. Located about 240 km from the Horn of Africa and 380 km south of the Arabian Peninsula.

The second Masirah Island lies 95 km off the eastern coast of Oman Occupying width of about 14 km and an area of 649 sq.km.

These two islands, the U.S. maintains bases were used as points of concentration of troops during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, reports indicate that there is a momentum aviation with aircraft landing on an almost daily basis, carrying troops from the large base keep the U.S. in the Pacific is of Diego Garcia some 3000 km further away.

Estimates of special mention that these two islands, until the end of February will have accumulated approximately 50,000 men, who in conjunction with already 50,000 already in the region, will raise the total U.S. forces to 100,000 number that existed in the invasion of Iraq.

While at least 15,000 men developed recently in Kuwait, a move the Pentagon showing that awaits if war, an all-out fight with Iran. Meanwhile, officials from the Philippines located in the U.S. for talks with U.S. military leaders addressing the issue of increased U.S. military presence in the region.

Although the discussions referred to the relevant post in the Washington Post, however, the talks are expected to reach an agreement soon. Although the reason for the increased military presence, the U.S. maintains a large in the Philippines Subic Bay Naval Base-apparently intended as compensation for the corresponding presence of China One does not exclude the participation of those forces when deployed in theater in the Philippines business in Iran.

Besides the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln before arriving in the Gulf was in Taflandi enrolled in the Pacific Fleet.

Finally at least 78,000 men of the U.S. armed forces moved in last week within the U.S. and particularly in California. Although not confirmed this report shows up to a point a general redeployment of U.S. forces, both in the Arabian Sea and the Pacific region by the same U.S..

Regarding the U.S. naval preparations and France maintain four aircraft carriers during this period in the Gulf USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Carl Vinson, USS Enterprise and the Charles de Gaulle.

[blackchisel97]

This is probably nothing new to many but quite disturbing when compiled together - Presidential Commission: Directed Energy Weapons Used On American Citizens in Tests :

V

[dutchdivco]

Forgot to mention

A Constitutional Convention, or at least SOME similar sort of 'function', MAY be necessary in order to 'get rid of' this 'bastardised' Constitution, and get us back where we should be.
My thinking is we have to remember, the vast majority of the people haven't read Ricks detailed explanation of all of this. They know NOTHING about Corp. U.S., don't realise they are just voting for corporate officers, etc.
And, to 'go back' to operating our Gov't. according to the 'real' Constitution is going to create some real chaos.All SORTS of Laws 'on the books', and which people have become accustomed to, suddenly aren't valid anymore.
The examples you just posted, for instance.So, I'm trying to envision HOW this transition would take place.A Constitutional Convention, where the delegates looked at the material Rick has presented, and issued a detirmination that yes indeedy, the Constitution we have been operating under for many years is invalid, MIGHT be one way to do this.s'all I'm saying,...Jim

[rickoff]

The Political Money Race

With nearly all of the media buzz centered on Mitt and Newt these days I'm sure you have all heard reports that Mitt has been outspending Newt on Florida political ads by a factor of about 8 to 1. That's quite a difference, and when "super PAC" ads are included the Romney campaign and super PAC Restore Our Future have spent a combined total of more than $15 million in an attempt to win the Florida primary election. As one might expect, the bulk of Mitt's campaign warchest funds comes from Wall Street and financial sector firms, corporate interests, big business lobbying groups, and law firms. What you may not have realized, though, is that Mitt's largest contributor so far is none other than Goldman Sachs. Yes, the same Goldman Sachs that bribed the Senate with campaign contributions in order to pass the "bailout bill." Yes, the same Goldman Sachs that received nearly $13 billion in taxpayer funded AIG bailout funds and then paid its executives $14 billion in bonuses. Yes, the same Goldman Sachs that sent $4.3 billion of those bailout funds to 32 entities which included many foreign banks and hedge funds.

Two questions now arise:
1. How much of the $365,000 Goldman Sachs contribution to Mitt Romney's campaign actually came from taxpayer funded bailout funds?
2. We know that Goldman Sachs was a top contributor to the 2008 Obama campaign, giving Barry more than $1 million. To Barry's 2012 election warchest, Goldman Sachs has so far contributed $50,124, which is less than 1/7th of what they have contributed to Romney. The question here is not only how much of this money came from taxpayer funded bailout funds, but what does Goldman Sachs' across the board political donations, in Congressional as well as Presidential campaigns actually signify?

We will probably never know how much of the bailout funds actually has ended up going to political campaign contributions, but what we can be sure of is that Goldman Sachs, and other top contributors to Presidential and Congressional candidates, expect to reap a payback reward when their favored candidates win election or reelection. Thus, the more a candidate gets from these special interests, the more they owe them.

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about donations from Goldman Sachs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsFN4BFzzco&t=8m08s
"I don't want their money. I wouldn't take their money."GS and other top contributors will spread their influence cash on both sides of the fence in order to cover all bases, and will give the most bucks to the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning. If they see things deteriorating for Mitt, they will begin throwing their bucks at Newt, and if they see none of the Republican contenders as likely to defeat Barry then they will begin pouring large sums of cash into Barry's reelection warchest. You see, they really don't care at all who actually wins, and simply want to ensure that whoever does win will be beholden to them.

[rickoff]

Is this woman for real?

In post #2527 I pointed out a video link to an MSNBC poll showing that Ron Paul had a wide lead over Romney in Iowa. In the same video, discussing those results, a Republican spokeswoman says that, "Ron Paul is never going to be the Republican nominee, and I think that his supporters, if they don't get Ron Paul, will end up voting for Barack Obama."

How insane is that? This shows that the Republican establishment set out to discredit Ron Paul right from the start, even before the Iowa caucus vote took place. Faced with the reality that Ron Paul was way out front in likely voter polls, they wanted to drive home the point that Ron would never win the Republican nomination, and that Ron Paul supporters were really just a bunch of leftist liberals who would just as soon vote for Barry O. There are, of course, plenty of folks out there who are dumb enough to believe these kind of lies, and it is anybody's guess how much this may have influenced the outcome of the Iowa caucuses or later primaries. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as ever jumping ship, but the large number of undecideds in Iowa who may have been leaning towards Ron Paul may very well have been highly influenced by these words. Between attacks from establishment Republicans and media, which both seek to rule out Ron Paul, he certainly has very limited chances of winning the Republican nomination if voters can be easily influenced. One thing that many voters are not yet aware of, though, is that the the candidate field is already effectively narrowed to just 2 candidates, and that Ron Paul is one of them. That's right, and this is because Gingrich and Santorum have failed to be placed on the ballot in several states, and therefore cannot take the 568 delegates represented by those states, and therefore they cannot possibly win the nomination no matter how they score in the primaries. With Newt's win over Romney in South Carolina, and another possible big win in Florida, this takes delegates away from Romney, but does Newt no good. All delegates won by Gingrich or Santorum will be up for grabs by Ron Paul (see Doug Wead on MSNBC w/ Alex Witt 01/21/12 - YouTube), and it is an established fact that less than 30% of voters favor voting for Romney because they would prefer voting for a more conservative candidate. That's where Ron's strength lies, if the public can be educated to the fact that Ron is the only conservative candidate in the running.

One might wonder why Palin has been calling for people to vote for Newt in the South Carolina and Florida primaries. If he can't possibly win, then what's the point? Or is she hoping to draw delegates away from Mitt so that they may become available to Ron Paul? Or is she simply unaware that Newt cannot garner enough delegates to win the nomination?

[dutchdivco]

Rick (Hi!)

What your describing with Goldman Sachs has been going on for some time, as you well know. There USED to be a perception that the Repub party was 'the party of wealth', for the most part, and the Dems were the 'party of the middle class'.But wealth figured out a LONG time ago, to 'bet on BOTH horses', and therfore they win, no matter how the election goes.
What (maybe) has changed, is the SCOPE of the $ involved.

I remember back during Watergate, they were talking about suitcases with $100,000 or so in it.It is said that such a suitcase was transported from Joe Kennedy to Chicago, by a gangster moll (dame?) prior to 1960. Now we're talking about millions, perhaps 100's of millions of $'s being funneled into Pres. campaigns, directly and indirectly.And we have to assume similar amounts in to Senate races, as well.

On your second post; Its discouraging that such tactics are used because they WORK. You would THINK that Florida prmary voters would hesitate to vote for Romney; "If he needs to spend that much $, and go that negative, just to win 1 state, do I REALLY want to vote for him?"
On what the party 'elite' wants, can't they stop and ask themselves; "How happy am I with the direction of the repub party, over the coarse of the last 10 years? THESE 'party elites' are the ones that have been steering the ship.So WHY should I listen to them, or vote the way THEY want me to?"

And yet, (if we discount vote rigging), these idiots are swayed by massive negative advertising campaigns, and by massive "party leaders are against, party leaders say" type campaigns.Its important to remember there is NO such thing as 'collective wisdom', and the vast majority of people are idiots, and are swayed by emotions, under the guise of logic. To borrow from an old anti-drug campaign "Why do you think we call them "Sheeple"? I can't believe the repub voters are going to end up with Romney as the nominee, but, (unless we have a 'brokered' convention hope,hope) he may end up being the nominee.

And yes, while it would be best if primary voters cast for RP, its entirely possible that votes for Newt and Santorum now, will prevent Romney from having enough delegates to gain the nomination, BEFORE the convention. And, that delegates for either of these 2 may 'swing' to RP, rather than going for Romney.One can but hope! How anyone can believe that Romney will beat B.O. is beyond me. I would rip out my arm at the socket, before I would let it vote for Romney.To me, it would be just like voting for BO, and maybe even, if possible, WORSE.But thats me,...Jim

[Bizzy]

One might wonder why Palin has been calling for people to vote for Newt in the South Carolina and Florida primaries. If he can't possibly win, then what's the point? Or is she hoping to draw delegates away from Mitt so that they may become available to Ron Paul? Or is she simply unaware that Newt cannot garner enough delegates to win the nomination?

Hi Rick
I honestly think that Palin is not so much for Newt as she is against Mitt.


One thing that I have noticed is that they all try to claim that they are like Reagan, but they don't follow HIS economic values, they don't follow HIS political values and they don't follow HIS 11th Commandment. Quite frankly I don't like anyone who is running on our side. So I wil probably have to hold my nose and cringe when I vote for our nominee this year, just to get that marxist out of the White House.

Although I have been thinking about having our Shih Tzu run for the Republican nominee... Figgie for President

Bizzy

[dutchdivco]

Hi, Bizzy

Admittedly, Palin didn't get involved last time, until AFTER the delegate count had been settled, (If I'm remembering correctly, that is). Still, I can't help but think she is politically savvy enough to know how it works.

My thinking is she's just responding from a gut level (emotionally); anyone the 'party elite' is against, she is for. And, I expect Romney turns her stomach, as well.Probably would be for RP, except she's got the same 'hang up' as lots of Repubs, regarding his foriegn policy, which I think is a mis-perception of what he is saying.

At the risk of being lambasted, IF, and its a BIG IF, I was sure the Repubs would get a majority in the house AND Senate, and my only choice (not addressing Ricks alternative) were between Roney and B.O., I would be tempted to vote for B.O.

A) I 'dislike' Romney THAT much, and don't trust him at all. "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

B) With the big IF assured, BO would HAVE to deal with repubs, and compromise. It would be much like Clintons second term, when MANY conservative agendas were advanced.And, under this current system that we have, I LIKE divided Government when its that way. Don't like it when either party can 'run the table'. Didn't like it when Bush had majorities, and they spent like drunken sailors. Didn't like the first 2 years of BO's term, when he was able to pass anything (just about) that HE wanted, like Obamacare.

The best the current system can offer, it seems to me and based on recent history, is this situation where one party has the whitehouse, and the other party has both houses of congress. THEN something gets done, and if its conservatives controlling Congress, its conservative things that get done.

Unfortunately, impossible to know, for sure, what will happen in Congress in the next election.

But I DO know, even now, I will not be able to hold my nose, and vote for Romney. Just won't, can't, no way!! So,maybe Figgies got a vote!Jim