The American Ruling Class

[Slider2732]

In name, Vista isn't too far from Viagra
Oh, try downloading Open Office, it's free - OpenOffice.org - The Free and Open Productivity Suite

Somewhat related to this thread, is the situation of benefits.
Do people who pour scorn on those who qualify really know the situation ?

My wife qualifies for Food Stamps, i'm non existent so I don't, yet anytime a relative may send me a couple of hundred $ they have to know about it (2 or 3 times per year, birthday etc).
It's the only thing we do qualify for and that could be considered as a helper from the Government.
As you may know, my wife landed a job a few months ago, part time. She isn't physically well enough a woman to be dependable for an 8hrs work day. Any malady and she can get through 4hrs, even with a start time of 6am.

Recently the Food Stamps 6 monthly review came up.
Because she now works 4hrs a day for 5 days a week at minimum wage, we found out today that the benefit has been slashed from $200 a month, to $16.

Anyone who can work and finds work, has little incentive to do so, because food prices are sky rocketing.

[rickoff]

I brought up americans elect, when I first heard about it, and saw your posts about it. Anyway, I had several thoughts; for 1 thing, unless I missed something, I didn't see anything in your proposal regarding president/Vice President.You talk about an alternative way for Federal legislators, and state governments, but I didn't see anything about Executive, and thought it might be a route to that end. But, I 'see' what you mean, it would just be electing corporate officers. I do know that after Perot, the parties 'worked the system', to make it much harder to get on the ballots, in all 50 states. And, I know Pat Buchanan and some of his cronies 'joined' the Perot party, and ran it into the ground. Which brings me to another point about Americans elect. I heard there are some questions about where their funding is coming from; they have PROMISED transparency, but when pushed say their contributors have the right to privacy, and they will encourage them to be open about having contributed, but can't insist on it.

This makes me wonder whether the whole thing is a subterfuge; Americas dissatisfaction is palpably obvious; so, why not create a venue for people to vent that frustration, that will go no where? Thoughts?Jim

Hi Jim,

I'm at my cottage and don't have my password list, so I can't remember my login at Americans Elect and can't remember exactly what I wrote there. I think that I concentrated just on Congress to make the point that nothing is likely to change as a result of the 2012 election cycle, meaning that establishment Democrats and Republicans will remain in control. In 2010 the TEA Party thought they had succeeded by ousting some House Democrats and helping the Republicans gain control of the House. Tea Partiers thought it was a sure thing that Republicans would repeal or defund ObamaCare, slash runaway spending, and balance the budget. None of that happened. The Republicans passed a TEA Party backed plan calling for a balanced budget Amendment and some hefty (though still not large enough) spending cuts, in exchange for a temporary debt ceiling hike. But Democrats rejected the plan while offering no plan of their own. At that point, Republicans should have stood firm and told Democrats to either reconsider the plan or be prepared to default. There was no need for Republicans to compromise, give in to Democrat demands, and end up with a plan that will accomplish nothing. But Boehner did exactly what the Democrats wanted and told the House TEA Party caucus they had better get their a**es in line and vote to approve Boehner's proposal. Everyone knows what happened, and should know by now that it is not enough to simply gain Republican control of the House and Senate in 2012. It won't make a darned bit of difference in the way things are done in Washington unless voters could throw out all the establishment politicians, and that simply will not happen. The stark reality is that TEA Party candidates cannot hope to win control of the Senate until 2014 at the earliest, and then only by winning every seat that is up for election in 2012 and 2014. Given that only 1/3 of TEA Party candidates in 2010 actually won seats, and only 5 senate seats were won, it will likely take a decade or more for the TEA Party to win control of the Senate. Actually it will probably take way longer than that, because the establishment politicians simply will not allow the TEA Party to gain control of Congress. In 2010, for example, we saw how Lisa Murkowski lost to a TEA Party candidate in the Alaska primary election, but then Murkowsi ran for election anyways as an "independent," and magically won. We saw other establishment politicians declaring themselves to be TEA Party candidates, when in fact they were not, and this tactic worked to siphon votes from the real TEA Party candidate, thus allowing the Democrat candidate to win. You can bet that there will be a lot more of that sort of thing going on in the 2012 elections. Already you can see that every Republican establishment politician running for a seat in the White House is courting the TEA Party big time, but in reality there is no TEA Party candidate for that seat.

Anyways, Americans Elect, and other "conservative" groups that seem to be popping up all over the place, may very well be playing the kind of game you are talking about. They will all try to convince voters that their votes (and their generous contributions, of course) are going to make a real difference in 2012. And that is either uninformed hogwash or an outright lie. Whichever it is, it ends up as disinformation that lures people in and makes them feel comfortable in their belief that they are doing the right thing. Go into the discussion areas of these groups and all you see is people talking about how they like one or another of the Republican contenders. None of these groups is talking about the need, or the way, to restore our original jurisdiction government at both the state and federal level. That's why I feel it is vital that we provide that information. I'll be dropping in on as many of these groups as possible, and hoping to find people willing to wake up to the truth and take action.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Rick

So, just to be clear; with what you are talking about, (can't remember the correct terminology), there IS a way to 'elect' a pres. and Vice-pres, its not JUST about state and Federal legislators, is that right? If so, is there any need for Candidates for Pres. and VP to get 'on the ballot'? I would think not, as the 'regular' ballot is just for people running for Corporate officer, right? So, exactly how would we go about electing executives, under the scenario you've been talking about? And, how would they go about 'assuming the duties', etc. Just trying to understand the mechanics of how it would work.
Jim

[rickoff]

Hi Rick
I wonder if Barry will bail out his uncle before the election or wait til afterwards. Regardless this just shows why he is so in favor of allowing "undocumented workers" to remain. In addition to the fact they usually vote for Democrats anyway.

I heard a rumor. I don't know if it is true, or if he would even be allowed to do it, but I thought I would throw it out there any way. I heard that regardless of the outcome of the election, win or lose, that Obama was going to pardon all illegals and allow them to stay in the US. Can he do that legally?

Thanks,
Bizzy

Hi Bizzy,

What you heard is already fact. Barry issued an executive order for illegal alien amnesty through Janet Napolitano's "Department of Homeland Security (DHS)" on August 19th, and it appears that Barry's drunken Uncle Omar has been one of the first illegals to benefit from the order. Just a few days ago, Omar Onyango Obama was released from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “Uncle Omar” was being held subject to a 1992 deportation order, which was uncovered following his arrest for driving under the influence, driving to endanger, and failing to use a turn signal.

Representative Steve King, who is calling for a House investigation on the matter, had this to say: "This executive amnesty that the president has ordered, that they’re not going to enforce immigration law, and who pops up first? Drunken ‘Uncle Omar.’ I want to subpoena drunken ‘Uncle Omar’ to come into the House Judiciary Committee along with his attorney, who’s the same attorney that President Obama’s ‘Aunt Zeituni’ had that got her asylum.”

Janet Napolitano explained that under the new DHS guidelines, there will now be a case-by-case review of all deportation cases involving illegal immigrants. Those involving "criminals" will be prioritized and almost all the rest will be thrown out.

Hmmmm , isn't it true that every illegal alien now residing in the US entered and remained here in violation of US law, and has thus willingly and knowingly committed a crime? After all, the dictionary definition of a crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Therefore, anyone who perpetrated the crime of illegal entry to the US is a criminal.

But wait a minute - Napolitano goes on to say that the order pertains to serious crimes such as crimes of violence. Hmmmm , well then why did ICE, which had uncle Omar in custody, let him go? Remember, Omar was slated for deportation in 1992, but defied that deportation order, just as Barry's Aunt Zeituni had done. While that in itself doesn't make him a violent criminal, wouldn't you consider the fact that he was arrested after nearly plowing his vehicle into a police cruiser an act of violence? A drunk driver behind the wheel of an automobile might as well be brandishing and indiscriminately firing a gun into a crowd of people lining the city streets. That automobile becomes a lethal weapon having a high probability of causing serious injury or fatality. Omar could easily have killed or maimed one or both of the officers in the patrol car had he struck it, or run down a pedestrian. So what makes ICE think that Omar should be released, and is not to be considered a threat to society? I guess one has to be a rapist or murderer to be considered a "violent" criminal.

Go figure..........

[rickoff]

So, just to be clear; with what you are talking about, (can't remember the correct terminology), there IS a way to 'elect' a pres. and Vice-pres, its not JUST about state and Federal legislators, is that right? If so, is there any need for Candidates for Pres. and VP to get 'on the ballot'? I would think not, as the 'regular' ballot is just for people running for Corporate officer, right? So, exactly how would we go about electing executives, under the scenario you've been talking about? And, how would they go about 'assuming the duties', etc. Just trying to understand the mechanics of how it would work.
Jim

Hi Jim,

The first priority is finding eligible electors in each state who can both elect an original jurisdiction Governor and sit on the Electoral College for the purpose of electing a President and Vice President. The second priority is getting all the original jurisdiction (OJ) state governors elected. Each OJ Governor will have the authority to appoint two US Senators, and these Senators will have the authority to confirm the Electoral College votes for President and Vice President. Voting does not occur through the corporate state's ballot box. A candidate for OJ Governor would file his or her intent to run as a candidate at an appropriate state recording office. Likewise, electors would file their affidavit of vote for OJ Governor by content notarized mail, according to the procedure described here.


And here's the broader plan of action, as laid out by TeamLaw in answer to a question I posed regarding the perceived need to reseat not only our OJ state and federal governments, but to reseat a lawful judiciary as well:

The process for the people to follow to so reseat and preserve the official seats of our government is quite clear. And, as noted, the process for returning our original jurisdiction government (State and national) back into control over Corp. U.S. and our nation can only be lawfully accomplished by learning and applying that law. Accordingly the plan for that accomplishment includes, but is not limited to, the reseating of all three branches of our government (Administrative, Legislative and Judicial). When the offices are all vacant, the necessity for a “jumpstart” requires that we:

1. Find the electors from each State that are eligible to both sit in the Electoral College and elect a Governor for their respective State;
2. Lawfully elect and seat the governors;
   • Respectively each governors has lawful authority to appoint any vacant seat including (but not limited to) the two original jurisdiction national senators for their State;
   • Thus, once the Governors are all seated:
3. The Governors need to timely appoint the respective Senators to fill the original jurisdiction Senate;
   • Of course, until we have the Electoral College seated in a presidential election year, we will not need the Senate (for without the President and the judicial system in place, the Senate will remain almost useless except for its capacity to confirm elections form the Electoral College); thus, before we want the Governors to seat the Senate, we need to get the Electoral College ready to elect a President (the next opportunity for such an election is in November of 2012).
4. Seat the Electoral College and timely hold a lawful election of the President of the United States of America in its original jurisdiction.
5. Once elected and lawfully seated, the President acquires all of the responsibilities of his office including (but not limited to):
   1. The office of the Commander in Chief of the military;
   2. The administrative authority to seat the Supreme Court; and,
   3. The administrative authority to reseat any vacant administrative office (in accord with the needs of his office);
6. After the President’s seating, respective effects would take place at the State level. Such effects could not have reasonably been accomplished at the State level until they had the support of the reseated national government in its original jurisdiction. With that national support, the respective states can resume their function in a similar fashion.

Though this list does not go into any great detail, it follows the process set out in law for the restoration of our original jurisdiction government under a situation such as the people face today. - TeamLaw Admin

[dutchdivco]

Ahhhh

I didn't 'get it', before that these electors would ALSO be electoral college representatives, and could therefore elect Pres. and Vice-pres. NOW I get it, thanks for the clarification.
Would there be a need to make the amendments (the ones you talked about earlier, that set the stage for creating Corp. U.S.)'unconstitutional'? A judicial finding, or repeal them or anything? Also, this 'agreement' that was made in the 40's, somethingorother 'wood', what is the exact nature of that? Was it a 'treaty', or a contract, or what? ThanksJim

[dutchdivco]

On Immigration

This is like a 'repeat' of "Depends on how you define "SEX", (As in "I did NOT have sex with that woman", only now its "depends on how you define "AMNESTY". They aren't giving amnesty, as such, they are 'just' declining to enforce immigration policy, except for "Violent criminals".

Actually, Az. did something awhile back; There are serious felony charges for "Human trafficing". And, "Conspiracy laws" say that you are guilty of a crime, if you conspire with another to commit a crime, even if you never end up doing it; just conspiring to is a crime, in itself.

So, if a 'smugglee' conspires with a smuggler to have themselves smuggled into the US, they are conspiring to commit human trafficing, and can be prosecuted as such. Sheriff Joe, "The toughest sheriff in the country' has jailed thousands of illegals under this 'theory' of law.And, as far as I know, he's continueing to, despite the Federal policy to only go after the violent criminals. Jim

[rickoff]

Architects & Engineers - Solving The Mystery Of WTC 7

Join actor, Ed Asner and Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall. Solving the Mystery of the Free-Fall collapse of WTC 7.

Architects & Engineers - Solving The Mystery Of WTC 7 - YouTube
Al

Thanks. A good video. Anyone who watches this with an open mind and still believes the "official" NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC building 7 is highly delusional.

While on the topic of WTC Building 7, I highly recommend everyone watch the new 9/11 Building 7 music video by Martin Noakes. Great video, and says so much in under 5 minutes.

Also watch What Happened To Building 7

Ten years after 9/11, and with mountains of evidence that squarely contradict the "official" explanations of the 9/11 events, isn't it about time that an official independent investigation is demanded? If left to the Corporation U.S. Congress to initiate such an investigation, it will of course never happen. The investigations and reports from groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, 9/11 Truth.org, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Citizen Investigation Team have gone a long way towards revealing the facts surrounding 9/11 events. Could further truths be revealed by a new, independent but official investigation? It's hard to say, because most of the original evidence was removed and destroyed, or otherwise concealed by Corporation U.S. agencies. Then too, many 9/11 event eyewitnesses, and persons with high level knowledge regarding the incidents, have mysteriously died under dubious circumstances, and cannot now be called upon to testify as to what they knew. Still, so many questions remain unanswered and we must keep asking the questions in order to keep the issues alive.

[rickoff]

This is like a 'repeat' of "Depends on how you define "SEX", (As in "I did NOT have sex with that woman", only now its "depends on how you define "AMNESTY". They aren't giving amnesty, as such, they are 'just' declining to enforce immigration policy, except for "Violent criminals".

Actually, Az. did something awhile back; There are serious felony charges for "Human trafficking". And, "Conspiracy laws" say that you are guilty of a crime, if you conspire with another to commit a crime, even if you never end up doing it; just conspiring to is a crime, in itself.

So, if a 'smugglee' conspires with a smuggler to have themselves smuggled into the US, they are conspiring to commit human trafficking, and can be prosecuted as such. Sheriff Joe, "The toughest sheriff in the country' has jailed thousands of illegals under this 'theory' of law. And, as far as I know, he's continuing to, despite the Federal policy to only go after the violent criminals. Jim

Yes, sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing a great job, and is doing the right thing in enforcing state and federal illegal immigration laws that the Corporation U.S. feds ignore.

[rickoff]

I didn't 'get it', before that these electors would ALSO be electoral college representatives, and could therefore elect Pres. and Vice-pres. NOW I get it, thanks for the clarification.

Would there be a need to make the amendments (the ones you talked about earlier, that set the stage for creating Corp. U.S.)'unconstitutional'? A judicial finding, or repeal them or anything?

The creation of Corporation U.S. in 1871 was neither unlawful nor unconstitutional. It was done legitimately for the purpose of conducting the business of the United States of America, and the persons who served as corporation officers, until 1913, were also lawful members of the original jurisdiction government. When the lawful government ceased to exist after 1913, those who were seated in Washington DC served only in the capacity as Corporation U.S. officers. They could make changes to their own charter, the Corp U.S. Constitution, but our Constitution remained unchanged. Therefore, there would be no need to repeal any amendments enacted after our o.j. government ceased to exist. Any unconstitutional Amendments enacted up until that time, though, would need to be addressed and repealed, such as the 14th (ratified under duress), the 16th (the income tax) and the 17th (changing how Senators were seated, and resulting in the loss of our o.j. government).

Also, this 'agreement' that was made in the 40's, somethingorother 'wood', what is the exact nature of that? Was it a 'treaty', or a contract, or what? Thanks, Jim

The Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944 would have been considered a treaty (an agreement between nations) had it been signed by the lawful President and authorized by a lawful Congress. That would have been impossible, of course, since our lawful federal government ceased to exist after 1913. Had the actual government approved a treaty to turn over the business interests of the United States of America, and the assets of the Treasury, to a foreign power, this would have been an unconstitutional act. There is nothing illegal, however, in a corporation quitclaiming itself, and its corporation treasury, to another corporation. One could argue that the act of quitclaiming the District of Columbia to the IMF was nothing short of treasonous, and it certainly wasn't the right thing to do, but it would be a hard one to prove in court since it was a legal corporate act.

The plan for restoring our lawful, constitutional Republic does of course include bringing Washington DC back under control of our lawful original jurisdiction government.

[dutchdivco]

Sorry, Rick

I THOUGHT there was an amendment to the Constitution made at the outset of the civil war, that was passed without the necesary votes, which would mean it was unconstitutional.
In reading your post, it just occurred to me; were a jurisdictional Gov't to be seated in Washington, they would be unable to act for quite some time; hard to do anything, when you can't see your hand in front of your face, and they wouldn't be able to see anything because of all the smoke! ,......Why, the smoke from all the papers being burned, to cover up all the shenanigans, of coarse!
D.C. would be shrouded in smoke for a long time!

Remember when Clinton's, (I think it was) former Nat'l. Security advisor was busted, taking Documents out of the Nat'l archives?Small potatoes, of coarse, but now imagine thousands of Gov't employess, all trying to stuff documents down their pants, and in their socks, etc.

Paper shredders all over DC getting jammed, eventually theywould inevitably resort to fire. Jim

[aljhoa]

State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature
First Regular Session
2009

HCR 2024

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", and the Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

Format Document
Al

[dutchdivco]

Yeah, Al;

Sweet, huh? Except, if I recall, Gov. Jan Brewer didn't sign it into Law.

[rickoff]

I THOUGHT there was an amendment to the Constitution made at the outset of the civil war, that was passed without the necesary votes, which would mean it was unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment was unconstitutional. It was ratified by enough states, but the ratifications of the southern states were achieved under duress.

Remember when Clinton's, (I think it was) former Nat'l. Security advisor was busted, taking Documents out of the Nat'l archives? Small potatoes, of coarse, but now imagine thousands of Gov't employess, all trying to stuff documents down their pants, and in their socks, etc.

That was "Sandy" Berger. Yes, he concealed and stole documents from a reading room at the National Archives prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. His punishment? A fine, 2 years probation, 100 hours of "community service," and stripped of his security clearance for 3 years. No jail time at all. Can you imagine what would happen if we had done the same thing? Heck, people who get nabbed shoplifting a candy bar get banned from the store forever, but Sandy gets his security clearance back after just 3 years and it is assumed he can be trusted? How insane is that!? Incidentally, while the court downplayed the seriousness of Sandy's crime, the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that Berger had been given unsupervised access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing."

[dutchdivco]

14th amendment

Ahhhh thats the one. I thought the 10 (I think it was ) southern states senators 'walked out', and refused to vote on it, therefore the senate didn't have a quorum, hence 'unconstitutional'. Sorry, I know I have to go back and re-read your earlier posts on all this, multiple times.

Yeah, I wonder how many years you or I would spend in Fedreal lock-up, if we did what sandi berger was caught on film doing? And, of coarse its always interesting to speculate on what documents he may have been removing.
Hence my only partially facetious comments regarding the smoke over Washington D.C. if a jurisdictional Gov't is seated.