The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Thanks for the 'civics lesson' on how delegates are selected. I'm pretty sure this (the way RP supporters are 'educated' about the selection process, and are 'working' the system) is exactly the way Barry Goldwaters eaqually devoted supporters arranged what they did, in 1964.

I'd always known WHAT they did, just not exactly HOW they did it. As I say, its a shame most voters don't know HOW this part of the system works. They THINK their vote at the caucus or primary counts, when it really doesn't. Hmmmmm JUST like in the General Election!!! Jim

[gene gene]

Will Kevin Trudeau make a run for congress?

Whether you like this guy or not it should be known that he right now has his head on the chopping block for all of us. His fight for our freedom of speech is something we all should get behind. This $37,000,000 case will set a precedence that will effect all future attempts by our government, big media, or the powers that be, to take away our constitutional right of free speech.

please watch this video Is Kevin Trudeau running for Congress? How To Fix America (What Newt, Mitt, & Obama wont tell you) - YouTube

Oh and he is a big Ron Paul supporter.

Regards, Gene

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

" Makes you wonder how Romney could possibly "win" a popularity straw poll vote or primary, doesn't it?" This is one of the things I 'wonder' about the least, particularly after our recent 'civics' lesson. If you mean LEGITAMATELY win, well, yes. He's 'winning' because of obvious vote tampering, serious $ mudslinging, etc.
I even understand how individual voters can be for Romoney, since I don't believe in 'collective wisdom', and recognise human natures shortcomings.

How/why the 'mainstream' Party leaders can support him mystifies me more. Do they WANT to lose to Barry? I even understand their feeling threatened by Ron Paul, just can't see how they can possibly think Romoney is a good candidate to put up against Obama.

I think MAYBE this shows a ***** in their armour; while they pay lip service to defeating Obamacare, and how bad the mandates are, etc. I think they are just playing to the base; They REALLY think such a mandate is necesary, and "The only way to resolve the medical care funding problem". So, they have a blindness to seeing just how much of a handicap Romney would have, in going up against Barry. Similar blindness shows just how out of step the party leaders are, with the 'party faithful'. That they can really think he's a good choice, and be trying to manipulate things to force him down the throats of the voters, who are gagging and choking.

This reminds me so much of 64, and I hope you are right that RP and his followers are 'quietly' racking up delegates, and there ill be a surprise when the convention comes. One more reason to "Throw the BUMS out"; and not vote for ANY incumbent; certainly not 'just' because they are a republican. Jim

[rickoff]

How/why the 'mainstream' Party leaders can support [Romney] mystifies me more. Do they WANT to lose to Barry? I even understand their feeling threatened by Ron Paul, just can't see how they can possibly think [Romney] is a good candidate to put up against Obama.

They are not really so stupid as to think that Romney is the best choice to defeat Barry. They do understand that the candidate that could beat Barry would of necessity be a polar opposite of Barry having absolutely nothing in common with him. That candidate certainly isn't Romney. I only see two possibilities, Jim:

1. They do, as I suggested, plan to roll out the real candidate at the Republican National Convention, and have only been using Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum as a distraction so their real candidate can remain untargeted and above the fray until election time is near at hand.
2. They do, as you suggested, want Barry to stay in power. For those who think the Republican and Democrat parties are entirely different this idea would make no sense at all, but for those who understand that they are just two sides of the same coin, with the same agenda, it makes perfect sense. Barry is the perfect candidate to carry that agenda forward, and the establishment Republican party leaders know it, so to their way of thinking - why mess with a good thing?

This reminds me so much of '64, and I hope you are right that RP and his followers are 'quietly' racking up delegates, and there will be a surprise when the convention comes.

He's definitely racking up delegates, as pointed out in this article, but really hasn't done that in a quiet manner. Both Ron and his campaign manager have made statements to the press about Ron's ability to garner more delegates in caucus states than the other candidates have been able to, and the media attention to this fact began more than a month ago. As pointed out in post # 2584, leftist pundit Rachel Maddow disclosed exactly how Ron is racking up the delegates, and how he may have actually been the real winner in Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri. Her MSNBC TV show aired before the Maine caucus took place. So the question then becomes why the Romney and Santorum campaigns apparently didn't alert their Maine caucus goers to what the Ron Paul supporters would be doing, and ask them to be sure they too stayed, after the straw poll, for the delegate voting. It would seem that the Romney and Santorum camps really weren't concerned about gaining delegates, and weren't very concerned with Ron Paul getting the lion's share of them either. If the Romney camp did alert supporters, then why were 8 out of 10 Maine delegate hopefuls Ron Paul supporters? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Unless, of course, the number of claimed Romney supporters who showed up and voted in the Maine caucuses was largely overstated.

[rickoff]

Makes you wonder how Romney could possibly "win" a popularity straw poll vote or primary, doesn't it?" - Rickoff

This is one of the things I 'wonder' about the least, particularly after our recent 'civics' lesson. If you mean LEGITIMATELY win, well, yes. He's 'winning' because of obvious vote tampering, serious $, mudslinging, etc.

I was using a liberal amount of sarcasm and facetiousness when I wrote that, and this is why I used quotation marks around the word "win," so as to show that the media reported "wins" by Romney are anything but legitimate. It's like saying that anyone should wonder how anyone else could possibly believe that Romney has actually won any of these contests by valid means.

[rickoff]

I can't remember off hand if I had already mentioned this earlier, but Presidential candidate John Dummett and attorney Van Irion, of the Liberty Legal Foundation, filed a class action suit against the National Democrat Party (NDP) to challenge the NDP's certification of Barry O as eligible to be placed on the ballot.

This is interesting because all of the other cases concerning Barry's non-eligible status so far have been filed against Barry as the defendant. In this case, the NDP is the defendant, and it will be mighty difficult for them to show that Barry was or is actually eligible, as they claim. It is a well known fact, which I reported on here quite some time ago, that in the certification documents that the NDP sent to state election commissions in 2008, the normal language of "constitutionally eligible" was missing in all certifications except the one sent to Hawaii. That is a fact which they cannot challenge.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is. Since the NDP intentionally omitted the "constitutionally eligible" language from 49 state certifications, it could certainly be seen as an attempt to escape fraud charges for certifying Barry when they knew he was ineligible. Since they didn't actually lie by saying that he was constitutionally eligible in those 49 instances, what would the charges be? If they were charged with election fraud, their retort would probably be, "But we never said that he was constitutionally eligible." Of course they did say that he had been found "eligible" for placement on the ballot in those 49 states, and doesn't that really amount to the same thing? For a candidate to be found eligible, that candidate must meet all eligibility standards, and the most important of those standards are the ones imposed by the Constitution. And since Pelosi did include "constitutionally eligible" in the Hawaii certification, the DNC can't get away with claiming they never said Barry was constitutionally eligible. To me, it looks like all of this would (and should) come back around to bite the NDP in the butt. Of course they probably don't give a damn, because even if Barry is removed from the ballot for 2012 they will simply nominate Hillie when their convention rolls around.

I'm sure that you probably wonder why there were two different certifications in 2008, and why Hawaii was the only state that received the one saying Barry was constitutionally eligible. The NDP never explained this to anyone's satisfaction, but here is the likely scenario that prompted Pelosi to send the special certification to Hawaii:

When the Hawaii state election board convened to consider approval of names to be placed on the ballot, the issue of Barry's alleged but undocumented Hawaiian birth was almost certainly brought up and discussed at length. To approve Barry's placement on the ballot, each of the election board members would have had to place themselves in jeopardy of being charged with fraud at a later date. Knowing that, they communicated that concern, and their refusal to put their necks on the chopping block to validate Barry, to the NDP. Upon receiving that refusal, the NDP took it upon themselves to issue Hawaii a special certification of constitutional eligibility, which of course eased the consciences of the Hawaii election board officials who would believe they were "off the hook," as they could then claim that Barry had been declared validated as constitutionally eligible by others with high authority, and that they had simply relied upon that validation certification as being truthful. Sneaky, huh? And of course it still reeks of fraud, since Hawaii knew darned well that Barry wasn't eligible to be placed on the ballot in their state.

Incidentally, John Dummett and his attorney, Van Irion, met with sheriff Joe Arpaio on December 5th. John and Van were interested to learn of things that Arpaio's Cold Case Posse had turned up concerning Barry's ineligibility, and Arpaio was also very interested in Dummett's class action suit against the DNC. Arpaio took copies of the Dummett case filings, and has probably used this as further evidence to show that Barry is ineligible. Sheriff Joe will release his findings to the public March 1st. Joe did confide much of what he had found to Dummett, who said of Joe, "He told us things that I still have to hold in confidentiality. I can say, because it has already been released to the press and I can verify it, that he will produce a report in February, and it will be devastating. I can’t say what it is, but I know what it is.”


To left of sheriff Joe is John Dummett and his wife, and to right of Joe
is Dummett campaign manager William Odom and attorney Van Irion.

I guess we will just have to wait until March 1st for sheriff Joe's report to learn what this "devastating" information actually is, but it seems to me that in order for it to be devastating to Barry's claims of eligibility it would have to include something very substantial which has so far escaped disclosure, such as definitive proof that Barry was born elsewhere than Hawaii, and perhaps in Kenya. Holder's inJustice Department has been going after Joe with trumped up charges in an effort to get Joe to back off, but Joe appears to be standing firm in his commitment to go ahead with the report. If I were Joe I would release the report immediately instead of giving a date for release, since the regime will probably stop at nothing to either prevent the report from going public, or to discredit the report as the fantasy work of a lunatic and his henchmen.

Update on the Dummett/Van Irion class action suit: On January 23, 2012, Van Irion filed with the court (United States District Court for the District of Arizona) a motion requesting a default judgement against the NDP, the DNC (Democrat National Commitee), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC. The filing can be downloaded here and requests the following:

Pursuant to federal rules of civil procedure 55 the Plaintiffs move this Court for a default judgment against Defendant National Democratic Party of the USA and a permanent injunction prohibiting said Defendant, its subdivisions, employees, and agents from issuing any letters, certificates, or other document to any Secretary of State of any state, any agent thereof, or any other official of any state, indicating that Barack Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or that the Democratic Party has selected Mr. Obama as its Presidential candidate, or requesting that any state place the name of Mr. Obama on any ballot for the office of President of the United States for the 2012 general election. Grounds for this motion, as more fully set forth below, are that said Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint issued by this Court, and said Defendant failed to respond.

Federal rule of civil procedure 55 states in relevant part,
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”

Since none of the named defendants responded in defense of the charges, it seems quite clear that the court would have to follow applicable laws and issue a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In actuality, though, the court will more likely contact the defendants and request that they submit a rebuttal by a certain deadline. The defendants will then attempt to have the case dismissed on grounds of the complaint being "frivolous." The court may buy that defense, as they have in other eligibility cases, but if they don't then the defendants will surely ask for a deadline extension to have time to prepare and submit their rebuttal. The defendants will obviously use every possible tactic to delay a hearing date, and of course would appeal any decision that goes against them. I'm sure they would also ask the court to temporarily allow them to issue certifications, or continue in force any certifications which they already have issued, until such time as plaintiffs can prove that such certifications are inappropriate. If the court grants that, and they probably will, then this case would have very little clout at keeping Barry off the ballot nationally, and the only other efforts which stand a chance would be the remaining state cases and appeals. I would like to think that at least one judge has the backbone to issue a proper decision and can't be intimidated or bought off, but any such decision would then be open to an appeal to a higher court, more friendly to Holder's inJustice Department, where the decision would likely be overturned. I seriously doubt that Barry will be off the ballot in any state come November 2012.

[rickoff]

Some bumper sticker snickers for you

If you like any of these bumper stickers you can buy them at this website.

[aljhoa]

A Coup D'état

Smedley Darlington Butler[1] (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940)
was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history...
In his 1935 book War is a Racket, he described the workings of the military-industrial complex ...
Smedley Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933.
Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization.
In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims.[1]
In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2] No one was prosecuted.
Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al

[dutchdivco]

Coulda been,...

a 'screw up',...Hawaii I mean. Like someone was out sick, and a subordinate got the call "we need that certification, now." And so they sent out one with the 'standard' terminology, not knowing they were supposed to use the 'special' one.
Other than that, your speculation is not that far out. The DNC most certainly has Liars,..er Lawyers on their payroll, and that is EXACTLY the kind of 'counsel' a Lawyer would give their client in that situation; DON'T commit perjury, just say "I can't recall", because no one can PROVE what you CAN or CAN'T recall. ergo, they cannot PROVE perjury. This is just an extansion of that; "Leave out the phrase, in the certification; that way you aren't committing a crime. It depends on the meaning of the word "certify"; Its like "I did not have SEX with that woman",....well, it depends on the meaning of the word sex.

As for Sherriff Joe, he's been doing what he's been doing, for years, and the justice Dept. had no problem with it, his deputies were even cross-certified as ICE agents. It wasn't too long after he announced his investigation (into the birth issue) that Holdem, er Holder got serious about going after Joe for 'civil rights' violations. But, I'm sure thats just a 'coincidence'. See, I can do sarcasm, too!

I do think their MAY be those high up in the Repub party, who may make a calculation that its better for the pary leadership to have 4 more years of Barry. They give 'lip service' to the 'party faithful' that this country can't survive 4 more years, but not cause they necesarily really feel that, themselves, but just cause they know thats what repub rank and file want to hear.
I don't feel convinced, when I hear Romoney$ say it, thats for sure. Especially since he would obviously persue the same policy agenda, with only minor cosmetic changes.Jim

[rickoff]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Ron Paul is the clear choice of those serving in the US armed forces, and has received far more contributions from the troops than all of the other candidates combined, including Barry. Frankly, I find it really weird that so many people question Ron's stance on foreign policy, when his support from our troops is so overwhelming. Those who are serving overseas in our armed forces have firsthand knowledge of what our ongoing foreign policy is doing to undermine world peace and make our own nation less secure. They are tired of camping out in foreign countries that don't want us, and risking their lives for nothing. They despise going to battle in undeclared wars. They want to come home, and they know Ron Paul would bring them home and never ask them to fight an undeclared war. That's why, in a show of support for Ron Paul, veterans marched on Washington this President's Day. Quite notably, the veterans made a point of turning their backs toward the White House, to show their disgust with Barry O, who had run for election in 2008 on a false promise to bring our troops home. They also held a salute for 8 minutes, which represented one second for every suicide of a veteran returning under Obama. That's 480 suicides, and I think that speaks volumes about US foreign policy. There was also 20 minutes of silent prayer, representing one second for every US military death overseas while under Barry's command.

I can't remember hearing or seeing any mainstream media reports about this veterans march in support of Ron Paul. Of course I don't waste much time
watching mainstream news coverage, so perhaps that's the reason, or is it? Anyone see anything about this on TV?

[rickoff]

a 'screw up',...Hawaii I mean. Like someone was out sick, and a subordinate got the call "we need that certification, now." And so they sent out one with the 'standard' terminology, not knowing they were supposed to use the 'special' one. Other than that, your speculation is not that far out.

Actually, it has been proven that the Hawaii Election Commission received two different certifications. One came from the Hawaii Democrat Party (HDP) and the other came from the Democrat National Committee (DNC). The HDP document is shown below, and failed to certify Barry as constitutionally eligible, which is a requirement under Hawaiian elections law.

It is a bit difficult to see, but the above HDP document says, “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008, in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.”

The document shown below is from the HDP's 2004 certification of John Kerry, which does include the phrase, "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution." So why is this omitted in the certification for Barry? The omission is obviously intentional.


So, it is known that the HDP did not certify Barry as constitutionally eligible, even though they stated constitutional eligibility in the previous election, and others before that. Under Hawaiian law, unless a candidate is certified as constitutionally eligible, the chairperson of the Hawaii Election Commission is required to notify the candidate of his ineligibility and to schedule a hearing date for the candidate to offer a rebuttal to the ineligibility decision. This hearing would have occurred sometime around mid to late October 2008, and Barry notably did visit Hawaii late that month for the purported reason of visiting his ailing grandmother.

The second certification document supplied to the Hawaii Elections Commission is shown below, and was drafted and sent by the DNC. Note that Nancy Pelosi, as chair of the DNC, was one of the signators of this document, which did cite Barry as being constitutionally eligible. Alice Germond, DNC secretary, was the other.

The certification from HDP was dated August 27th, and the one from DNC was dated September 6th, 10 days later. The HDP did not change their certification to be in line with the DNC certification and state that Barry was constitutionally eligible, and under Hawaii Law only the HDP can validate a Democrat candidate - not the DNC. The differing certifications, however, did allow the commission chairman to make a decision to allow Barry's name on the ballot due to an obscure and questionable Hawaiian law, which states that when there is a difference of opinion on eligibility the chairman may make the decision to either strike or include the candidate on the ballot. Still, it seems that such a decision should be based upon some qualifying evidence. But what evidence? The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate.

Furthermore, there is very good reason why the HDP refused to validate Barry as being constitutionally eligible. The HDP has had, and may still have, William H. Gilardy on their board as their legal counsel. William H. Gilardy is the very same lawyer who represented Stanley Ann Soetoro's divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Because of his direct involvement in that divorce, Gilardy would have seen Barrys actual long form birth certificate, which would have been included by necessity in the case documentation presented to the judge. Gilardy knew the truth - that Barry was not constitutionally eligible - and as HDP legal counsel was obliged to caution the HDP against including such an eligibility statement. Interesting, huh?

[aljhoa]

Ron Paul v.s. Obama explaining gas prices.

BO: Instability in the Middle East, speculators, Chinese people buying more cars.
RP: Dollar devaluation (inflation).
Ron Paul v.s. Obama explaining gas prices. | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

Thanks to the American takeover of Egypt, petrodollar schemes were formed, and the dollar that began its decline in 1971 by losing its gold standard – recovered and became again a full-fledged world reserve currency. The oil of the Saudis and of sheikdoms being sold for dollars became the new lifeline for the American empire.
What Really Happened in the “Yom Kippur” War? » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The "petrodollar" system was a brilliant political and economic move. It forced the world's oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for both US dollars and US debt, while essentially letting the US pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. The petrodollar system spread beyond oil: the majority of international trade is done in US dollars.
Will Iran Kill the Petrodollar?

Canada, holder of the world’s third largest oil reserves, is seeking to reduce its reliance on the U.S. after President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.’s $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast. Canada sends 99 percent of its oil exports to the U.S.
“We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy,” Harper said at the dinner. “It’s that simple.”
Harper Says Canada Committed to Selling More Oil to China - Businessweek

Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick; NOPE

I am something of a 'TV network news junkie'; Watch the Sunday a.m. political news shows, and evening national news coverage, (PBS and NBC). I DON'T have cable, however. I saw NOTHING regarding the 'rally' or whatever, in DC by veterans for RP. I heard ONE mention, by ONE reporter, of the fact that RP has a lot of veterans supporting him, as well as currently serving servicemen/women. They DO mention him from time to time, but they don't say very much.

It is strange that Romney's been thru the process of running for Pres. before, and seems very detirmined, spending lots of $ buying endorsements, attack ads, etc. You would THINK he and his supporters would know how the process works, and would be 'working the system' to make sure he gets these delegates. Unless they figure the 'fix is in'; from what I gathered of what you posted earlier, in the states where they have primaries, the vote count doesn't necesarily have anything to do with the delegate count; perhaps they are consentrating on pulling strings THERE, working thru state party 'machines' to stack the delegate count???

This is all going on 'behind the scenes' in the sense that the 'average voter' doesn't have any idea HOW delegates are actually selected, and the (mainstream) press (where the 'average joe' gets their news) isn't saying
anything about it, either. But you would THINK the Romoney backers, party regulars, political operatives, would KNOW how the system REALLY works, and would be making some attempt to counter what RP's supporters are doing.Just doesn't make sense.

As to what the press DOES'T cover, well, we don't have near enough room here, to list it all. For instance, 'endorsements'; they are for sale. You want a Govenor to give you an endorsement, you contribute $ to THEIR campaign. Why doesn't the press make that clear, and stop even bothering to cover endorsements? They are meaningless, except to tell you how much $ a candidate has, and all the buying and selling goes on, about a year before the first primary.Jim

[aljhoa]

"There's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They're the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. ... And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. ... And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II.
Ron Paul "WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THE CIA" - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Actually.

There IS one explanation, that DOESN'T involve nefarious conspiracies, for explaining Romoney and his supporters lack of attention to detail, when it comes to 'lining up' delegates. There is a temptation, and therefore a risk, in 'believing your own press'. Its possible that they have been pushing the idea that Romoney is the 'Inevitable nominee' to the point that they began to believe it, themselves.

And its not without a certain merit, especially for people who WANT to believe, and who are 'political activists', and know how the system works, i.e. that $ equals credibility, etc.; he DOES have Mo'money, which buys organisation, endorsements, attack ads, etc.

And, they obviously have a strategy for dealing with any "Conservative challenger; Possibly funneling $ to several, to divide the conservative vote, and using attack ads in a 'whack-a-mole' fashion, any time ONE candidate seems to move ahead, and seriously challenge him. And, turning the lights out, postponing voting in key districts 'due to weather', etc. i.e. "Dirty Tricks" to attempt to make it look like he has "The Big Mo".

So, I suppose its POSSIBLE that they just didn't concentrate that much on the actual delegate selection process, because they were focused so much on these other things, AND because they believe it IS 'inevitable' that he will be the nominee. I sure hope they are wrong! Jim