The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Rick

You've voiced what I was thinking, regarding putting the ships in so close; another "Tonkin Gulf", as you say, either 'baiting' Assad or 'others' to stage some kind of attack, or faking one as a justification for 'boots on the ground'.

On the vote, I guess it may come down to how many 'tea party' repubs have been corrupted, by their time in D.C. They certainly haven't seemed to accept Boener's 'Leadership' in the past!

Did you see Al Jazeera America just released a (U.S.) Gov't (leaked) report on benghazi, described as 'scathing'? Says they were a 'sitting duck', and that security for many embassies in 'high risk areas', i.e. the middle east, is terrible.

Of coarse, O'bummer admin wouldn't have done anything to downplay this, so as not to let it tarnish O'bummer's 'security credentials', (for having 'gotten' Bin Laden), right before the election!

What am i saying? If O'bummer had lost, we'd have had that clown from Tax-a-chusettes, the "grandfather" of O'bummercare.

What a choice THAT was, huh? Lets see now, do I put my hand in a running garbage disposal, or a 1000 degree hot kiln?

Yeah, there IS an 'old guard' of repubs in D.C.; Boener, McCain, Graham and others, who are just as bad as O'bummer.

We aren't getting REAL 'Representation', and I even have my doubts about people like Rand Paul. After all, one effective way to deal with an insurgency is to co-opt it; look what happen to the 'party' started by whats his name(?); the Billionaire with the big ears; got taken over by another whats his name; former Nixon speachwriter, and his goal was to kill it, plain and simple!

The game is all rigged; you might as well try to guess which shell the pea is under!Jim

[aljhoa]

Stereotype

We aren't getting REAL 'Representation', and I even have my doubts about people like Rand Paul. After all, one effective way to deal with an insurgency is to co-opt it; look what happen to the 'party' started by whats his name(?); the Billionaire with the big ears; got taken over by another whats his name; former Nixon speachwriter, and his goal was to kill it, plain and simple!

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble,
precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?
Martin Luther - "The Jews & Their Lies" | Jewish Virtual Library

Al

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes of the day....

Near the end of a recent hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Senator Rand Paul asked Barry's Secretary of State John "swiftboat" Kerry whether the president would abide by Congress' vote, if Congress refuses to authorize Barry's planned military strikes in Syria. Kerry's answer?
"I don't know what the president's decision is, but I'll tell you this... he still has the constitutional authority and he would be in keeping with the Constitution."

Understand That? Sec. Kerry basically said, "Barack Obama doesn't really care WHAT you people in Congress say -- HE gets to decide if we're going to go to war, whether Congress authorizes him to do it or not!" But this exchange didn't stop there:

Rand Paul objected: "If we do not say that the Constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. You're making us into theater, and so we play constitutional theater for the president. If this is real, you will abide by the verdict of Congress..."

Putting his face in his hand, Kerry said, "Senator, I assure you there is nothing meaningless and there is everything real about what is happening here."

Paul interrupted, "Only if you adhere to what we vote on, only if our vote makes a difference, only if our vote is binding is it meaningful."

[dutchdivco]

A thought,...

Those who are rushing/urging 'us' to action in Syria keep saying what a 'TERRIBLE' signal it would be, to the world, if the Congress fails to vote to authorise.
Someone should publicly make the OPPOSITE argument; what a GREAT way to demonstrate to everyone what democracy IS, and how it works; i.e. the 'all-powerful' leader WANTS to attack, but (thru Congress) the American people say no, and he abides by their decision.

Imagine someone in the middle east, who's NEVER lived in anything LIKE a Democracy, seeing THAT! It would be inconcievable to them, and a real eye-opener; so THATS what true democracy is!

IF Congress DOES 'fail to authorise', I can't see him going ahead, anyway.Thats just a little to blatantly ignoring the people, and Congress.

Mind you, we've all been watching him have his attourney General refuse to enforce laws passed by Congress, or argue for them before Scotus, and use executive powers and selective enforcement, etc. to in various ways marginalise Congress and the People, but this, this one I think will bite him in the ass; if Congress votes down authorising force, and he goes ahead anyway, I think he's politciacally screwed.

This IS causing a re-examination of the 'war powers act', which is long overdue, as ther has long been serious questions as to its constitutionality, etc.

Seems like barry has got hinmself in a heck of a pickle, and momentum is going the other way.

It IS surreal; with 'swiftboat kerry' urging us toward war, and France being our only european 'ally' in favor, its nothing short of bizarre!

Polls are showing 90 to 100 to 1, against.The lies and distortions they are telling, to try to justify are getting thick and rediculous. On Lamestream media, saw a congresswoman saying they had been told, in a briefing, that Russia was supplying Syria with chemical weapons, as if THAT was a reason! Hold it Congresswoman! Syria has long been listed as having the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world! Why the hell would they need to get any, from russia, when they have more than enough, already you stupid b*tch?!!!
And 'they', as an argument FOR action, are now stating that chem weapons have been used at least 14 times, by Assad, which of coarse leads to "Well, hold it. IF we 'know' he's used them at least 14 times already, why are we making this one attack such a big deal that we have to retaliate??

Marth kraditz(?), recently said the American people ar not only war-weary, we've become war-wise, and it certainly seems so. Barry's trying to push all the old buttons (its in OUR National interests, cause these chemical weapons COULD be used against us, could fall into terrorists hands, etc.) and it just doesn't SEEM to be working! Jim

[john_g]

The Syria crisis has certainly been the subject of MSM and political distortions. The last few UK Column programs have covered this in depth and are worth watching in my opinion:

ukcolumn - YouTube

[aljhoa]

In The Making

9/5/13 - On Thursday afternoon, two of Fox News's more outspoken anti-war voices in Judge Andrew Napolitano and Shepard Smith spoke out against what they believe would be a "war crime" if the United States were to militarily intervene in the Syrian civil war, even after a potential congressional rejection vote.

Napolitano also noted for Smith that, technically speaking, "the president can start any war he wants, against anybody he wants for 90 days and nothing congress can do about it" under the War Powers Act. However, he added, that law is unconstitutional.

"So if they do this, we have committed a war crime," Smith asserted.

Napolitano agreed, adding that, in the event we strike Syria, there will be no way of stopping the United States. "No judge is going to stop this; no one is going to prosecute the president," the judge said. "The American people don't want this to happen; our allies in the region don't want this to happen. Who wants this to happen besides John Kerry and the president?"

The judge concluded by suggesting that any president can become "lawless" when they have a powerful military at their disposal. "No one seems to care about the law here," he said. "They just seem to care about politics. Congress lets the president start a war; the president doesn't care what international law says. He wants to be vindicated politically."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSyos7XVoKM

Al

[aljhoa]

Those who are rushing/urging 'us' to action in Syria keep saying what a 'TERRIBLE' signal it would be, to the world, if the Congress fails to vote to authorise.
Someone should publicly make the OPPOSITE argument; what a GREAT way to demonstrate to everyone what democracy IS, and how it works; i.e. the 'all-powerful' leader WANTS to attack, but (thru Congress) the American people say no, and he abides by their decision.

Emergency Powers

The Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the President.

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).
War Powers | LII / Legal Information Institute

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM


Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions | The White House

Al

[Ernst]

Soon there will be a nuclear incident in the US so that Obama has an excuse to start nuking the middle east.
But it will be an obvious false flag operation, just like 9/11 and the ones before.
The whole world will see and understand how these false flags are being used to start wars.
China and Russia combined will then permanently terminate the existence of the USA as we know it. Time to learn to speak mandarin, or loose your head in a FEMA camp....
China will take over the US.

It's a done deal. China is holding billions of US$ which are already worthless as the US$ has collapsed a few years ago already. No one sees it yet (no one but my computer program) as the FED is producing US$'s like rabbits. Just to keep the US$ from publicly collapsing before China takes over and you'll be using renminbi.
Thus the obscenely-rich-behind-the-scenes do not loose power while the US$ collapses.
The middle east is also holding large amounts of US$, but in a few years you will ask "what middle east?"

Everyone is fooled.
The sheeple who do not know a thing.
The sheeple who do know a thing or two and see through the false flags.
The sheeple who are members of secret societies, some of which get rich and influential.
The sheeple who are at the top of these societies and churches.
And the few who are actually pulling the strings, who have no one to fool them,... they fool themselves.

It's a strange world that we live in. Very strange indeed!

Ernst.

[rickoff]

Did you see Al Jazeera America just released a (U.S.) Gov't (leaked) report on benghazi, described as 'scathing'? Says they were a 'sitting duck', and that security for many embassies in 'high risk areas', i.e. the middle east, is terrible.

No, I didn't see the Al Jazeera broadcast, but I don't think it would have been worse than anything we already knew or imagined.

Barry, Kerry, and the MSM are obviously using this false Syria crisis to try and take everyone's mind off Benghazi and the other issues which really are of importance. It's like the "Wizard" of Oz, saying "Don't look there behind the curtain." They are doing everything possible, on a 24/7 basis, to focus attention on Syria, and away from what's behind that curtain. It's "Look over here folks, at Syria. This is what needs your attention, and the only thing you should be concerned about. Forget everything else."

[dutchdivco]

War Powers Act

Many have ?'s the Constitutional Validity of the W.P.A., but its never (I don't believe) been argued/decided before SCOTUS.

Seems to me the CONGRESS Could, in addition to voting down this current resolution, use its 'power of the purse', to pass a resolution specifically forbidding the executive (O'bummer) from spending any $ to 'finance' any military operations against Syria.
They did that, to close the door (firmly) on O'bummer shutting down Guantanamo, forbidding him from spending any $ to transport or imprison the detainees on U.S. soil.
Personally, I think that if the Congress does NOT vote to authorise him to use military force in Syria, he WON'T site the WPA, and proceed anyway. I also have serious doubts he will be able to persuade many, in his speach on Tuesday; we've heard all the arguments, and they are simply insufficient.
So A), hes really NOT that great at speaches and communicating, and B) he does NOT have that 'good a case', and C) the 'American people' are NOT the Ap of even 5-10 years ago, who are going to blindly 'get behind the President' and support a military action.

May you live in interesting times, indeed! 'Coarse, I could be wrong, but I just don't see him proceeding, if he can't get the A p 'behind' him, and I DON'T see that happening.

He's really handled this in a piss-poor way, all the way along! Jim

[Mad Scientist]

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Gee, I wasn’t aware that Syria had attacked us! I must have missed that in the MSM reporting.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

So I guess that explains why after 911 it was OK for us to attack Iraq even thou the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
Of course we should not to be concerned about those pesty little details.


I think it is becoming evident that the chemical attack was a false flag event.
Then the other day it was leaked that some of our nuclear weapons were quietly being moved to a South Carolina base, without any accompanying paper work! Followed closely by South Carolina’s senator Lindsay Graham publicly stating if we do not attack Syria then we could expect a nuclear “terrorist attack in South Carolina!"

Watching all these current events unfold it seems pretty obvious to me the PTP are pulling out all the stops to get us into a shooting war. What could they gain by creating this “distraction”? Could it be that they are afraid of something? Could that something be a man named Neil Keenan? He and his group have been for some time now been working to dethrone the PTP. This obviously is no simple task when you are up against a cabal that is used to taking down governments that have offended it.

But a plan was devised and is being implemented and the pieces are now starting to fall into place. Naturally you should not pay any attention to the following link rather you should join with the MSM and Obama and demand an attack on Syria, which could start WWII, which in turn would probably be one way to end most of our current problems.

NEIL KEENAN UPDATE: KEENAN GROUP CLOSES IN ON THE CABAL (2 videos) | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?

[dutchdivco]

Mad Scientist

I THINK you meant WW111, as I believe we already fought WW11, some time ago. My fingers 'mis-speak', all the time, no worries.
We ALL tend to see things as coinfirming our already established beliefs, its human nature. So, many on this forum see current events as confirming their already held belieif that everything is controlled by a cabal of powers that be, etc.
For me this all confirms my belief that it is not so clear cut; their definetly are people who are attracted to, maybe even 'addicted' to power, and who gravitate to Government, etc.
On the other hand, THEY are NOT 'all-seeing, or all-powerful, and are AS Likely to f*ck-up as anyone else; this has been a royal cock-up from day one!

Bush did it better, for Christs sake, and O'bummers difficulty in 'getting the American people' behind him can not ALL be blamed on the A.P. being 'educated' as a result of Bush's actions. O'bummer has been engaged in such a 'hesitation waltze', (unlike Bush; least you can say about Bush is he was decisive!).
Old Law Professor line; "When you have the FACTS on your side, you argue the FACTS, and when you have the LAW on your side, you argue the LAW; if you have neither 'on your side', you BANG your fists on the council table and shout!",...in other words, you appeal to the emotions of the jury.

I don't think O'bummer has the facts or the law on his side, and I don't think he is capable of appealing to the emotions of the American people, either.

And, I really don't believe, if he loses the vote in Congress, that he will proceed anyway, (with military action); I think he may have reached the end of the rope, as far as doing what he wants to, and blowing off both Congress and the A.P. Granted, he and his admin have a long history of such blowing off, but there IS a limit, and I THINK he may have reached it. And, that at least is a GOOD thing! Jim

[rickoff]

I'm sure that everyone here is familiar with the oft-times hilarious type of "news stories" written by the staff of The Onion. The latest edition features a story titled "Poll: Majority of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria," which is written in the usual fun-poking manner, and states that more than 90 percent of the American public is convinced that all 535 members of Congress should be put on the ground in Syria. Laughable as the story is, I really wouldn't be surprised to see such a polling result if this question was put before the public as a choice between deploying missiles or deploying Congress.

[Mad Scientist]

And, I really don't believe, if he loses the vote in Congress, that he will proceed anyway, (with military action); I think he may have reached the end of the rope, as far as doing what he wants to, and blowing off both Congress and the A.P. Granted, he and his admin have a long history of such blowing off, but there IS a limit, and I THINK he may have reached it. And, that at least is a GOOD thing! Jim

I agree. At least I certainly hope that he knows there is a limit. However if congress says no and he still decides to go ahead anyway I would not be overly surprised if the military stood up and says no we are not going to do this. Could you imagine all the fun and games that would cause?

However if congress decides to go along with him then by all means those members voting yes should be the first “boots” on the ground. What better way to demonstrate their wholehearted commitment.

[aljhoa]

I'm sure that everyone here is familiar with the oft-times hilarious type of "news stories" written by the staff of The Onion. The latest edition features a story titled "Poll: Majority of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria,"

Published on Sep 2, 2013

Bombshell: Syria's "chemical weapons" turn out to be sodium fluoride,
the same chemical dumped into municipal water supplies across the USA under "water fluoridation" schemes.
Bombshell: Syria's "chemical weapons" turn out to be fluoride - YouTube

Al