The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Bizzy and NADA

Bizzy;
I too, could be described either as a Repub, with strong Liertarian leanings, or as a Repub by default, due to a realisation that a 'Libertarian PARTY candidate has little chance of winning.

So was Goldwater, so was Reagan, so we're in 'good company'. I haven't researched RP's foriegn policy in depth, just, (like, I suspect, MOST primary voters) listened to what he said in the Debates. As I said in a previous post, I think he is handicapped, because debates are structured with 60 sec. 'soundbites' and aren't structured for nuances. And, in a 'soundbite' world, audiences aren't 'wired' for nuances, either.

Actually, what he (RP) said, isn't so different from what the DOD/Pentagon etc. have stated, is there plan for restructuring the military. (AGAIN).

Due to budget restraints, whether for the sequestration or just reality, we simply aren't going to be able to continue to have large #'s of ground troops, stationed all over the world.The 'restructuring' plan is to increase the kind of troops we are going to need, special forces, etc. while reducing 'invasion force' kind of troops.

WHY do we continue to have such a large troop presence in Western Europe?
Is it neccesary? The large troop presence we have in Korea, isn't anything like large enough to repel an invasion of South Korea by North Korea. Its only there to communicate that we have 'skin in the game', and WOULD live up to our commitment to stand with the South, in the event of an Invasion by the North. Pretty expensive way to send that message.

In addition, I personally feel like no one can really imagine what its like to sit behind that desk, in the Oval office, until your there.Until your getting the intelligence briefings, and you know the decision really rests on your shoulders. Both Bush and Obama did things, national security wise, that were the exact opposite of what they said they would do when they were a candidate. I don't ascrie this to dishonesty, so much as i ascribe it to this 'changed perspective'.

Bottom line; Do you REALLY think that RP, once in office, would do ANYTHING in terms of foriegn policy, that he thought would put the US at risk? Has he said ANYTHING to indicate he doesn't LOVE this country, and want to see it continue? Mainly what he has been talking about is a return to the Constitutional process; CONGRESS declares war. Therefore, BEFORE we go to war, all the rationales for going to war, and questions concerning same, are aired FIRST. That way, once the commitment is made, there should be no 'second guessing', and 'we were lied to', (Tonkin Gulf, Weapons of Mass Destruction) etc.

This whole "Bolin amendment" is a 'game' that Washington developed, and both parties play, to circumvent the Constitution. And, as a result of vietnam, our enemies are convinced if they can just drag the conflict out long enough, and keep the body count up, that they can undermine US public commitment, and win by default. And they are right. And the groundwork for such a victory is laid, by the Mickey Mouse, lack of clear commitment WAY 'we' go to war.NOT doing it the way envisioned by the founding fathers.

Goldwater railed against this, back in his acceptance speech in '64. "My opponent promises NOT to get us involved in a war in SE asia. I'm telling you, WE ALREADY ARE!! He went on to say how Johnson was fighting to lose, and how, if elected, he would fight to win, including using ALL resources necesary.
Asked if that included nuclear weapons, he said "Yes, all options" and was branded as a nutjob, and lost. How different history would be if he had won.

And what as he saying that was so outrageous? That if we DO commit our troops to a conflict, that we should fight to win; quickly, desicively; we 'owe' it to the troops, and to ourselves.

Similarly, (and ironically) RP, another Libertarian running for Repub party candidate, is being labeled as a 'nut' on the basis of his foriegn policy statements, only this time he is being mis-represented as a DOVE.

And is what he is saying really so wrong; that Congress should have to go on record, voting for war, after 'due' consideration. And, that clear national interests should, and if Congress has to decide, will be the main detirming factor? And further, by having 'the peoples representatives' debate and decide for war, you are also bringing the people along, and so the commitment is to win. Anyway, thats my take, and why I don't have a problem with RP's foriegn policy stance.

NADA; my problem with the Repub party is the leadership is more concerned with the interests of the party, than of the country.The difference between what they are supposed to be for, and what they are REALLY for.Jim

[aljhoa]

Similarly, (and ironically) RP, another Libertarian running for Repub party candidate, is being labeled as a 'nut' on the basis of his foriegn policy statements, only this time he is being mis-represented as a DOVE.

And is what he is saying really so wrong; that Congress should have to go on record, voting for war, after 'due' consideration. And, that clear national interests should, and if Congress has to decide, will be the main detirming factor? And further, by having 'the peoples representatives' debate and decide for war, you are also bringing the people along, and so the commitment is to win. Anyway, thats my take, and why I don't have a problem with RP's foriegn policy stance.

For the folks who love to go around snorting about conspiracy theories (and theorists),
watch this again. And then pay attention.
teerexness 22 hours ago
A Rothschild Speaks - Listen Closely - YouTube

Brzezinski! - YouTube

Al

[rickoff]

Here's something quite interesting. During the New Hampshire primary election, CNN conducted a voter exit poll asking each voter who they felt was the most likely candidate to defeat Barry O, and CNN showed the poll results on TV. These are the results:

Ron Paul 88%
Huntsman 5%
Romney 4%
Gingrich 1%
Santorum 1%
Perry 1%

Question: If Romney had actually won the New Hampshire primary, why would so many of those who voted for him have said that Ron Paul had the best chance of defeating Barry?

And here's another interesting tidbit. Fox News reporter Neil Cavuto actually said that Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney, is the biggest threat to Barry O's reelection. Finally, someone in the media willing to tell the truth! Amazing, isn't it?

[dutchdivco]

Rick

3 possible explanations. A) People 'lie' in exit polls, or the poll is not accurate because a certain type of voter 'agrees' to talk to the pollster, whereas a different type doesn't, 'skewing' the result.B) Ability to beat BO was NOT the primary consideration for most N.H. voters, or C) vote tampering.
Thing is, 'we' lie to ourselves, so why wouldn't we lie to pollsters? MOST voters will say they don't like 'negative' political ads. And yet, in numerous elections, we see that negative ads DO work; thats WHY politicians keep using them.
We want to think that $ is not the deciding factor in elections, but in the vast majority of elections, the politician with the most $ wins.
People SAY they don't like 'sex scandals', etc., and yet such stories sell newspapers.Its that old 'human nature' thing, again Human Beans; legumes with legs!
Makes me wonder if old Abe was wrong; You CAN fool all the people, all the time. Or, at least you can fool enough of the people, for long enough, to get away with murder.
How about this recent flurry of bi-partisanship, on the hill; Passing a bill to ban Congessman (and Gov't workers) from engaging in insider trading?
I would THINK that the laws already on the books banning insider trading would cover Congressman and Gov't workers, and that it would be obvious such behavior is illegal.
Only came about as a result of the forth estate doing its job, and publishing an in-depth study showing how Congressman leave office much wealthier than they arrive, and its largely as a result of stock investments, where they consistently do much better than odds would allow for.
just another way for lobbyists and the interests they represent to buy influence.And you can bet they wrote the law with loopholes they will be able to exploit. For instance, the Congressman doesn't buy stock, (based on an 'inside tip' from a lobbyist); his STAFFER does. Kind of a 'straw buyer'. Or his wife or children do, or a 'good friend'.
Corruption is endemic, and you will never be able to eliminate it. Particularly not when the guys writing the laws, are the ones engaging in it. They may give the appearence of writing laws restricting their behavior, but thats just an illusion.
Anyway, an interesting thing to watch, during this election cycle, when everyone is focused on Presidential elections; How many will stick with their stated goals of "Throw the bums out"? How many will vote out the incumbent, regardless of party, regardless of 'What they have done for MY state"? There are always some people SAYING this, at every election. I HEAR more people saying it, this year. Not optimistic that ENOUGH people will actually DO it, tho.
Wouldn't it be something, to see a totally 'NEW' Congress, (at least in terms of those who are up for re-election), with EVERY incumbent thrown out?
Yeah, I know, Rick, the Original Jurisdictional Government would throw out ALL the 'corporate officers' currently 'occupying' Congress, and the WH as well.
Hey, thats a good analogy; The idiots in Congress are 'illegally occupying' like the 'occupy' movement, and Capitol police ought to move in, with tear gas and flashbangs if neccesary, and run them off.
Now THATS something I'd pay $ to see! Jim

[dutchdivco]

And another thing

Of COARSE RP is the biggest threat to BO's re-election, and Romney is the opposite, and the candidate BO WANTS to run against.
During the whole Watergate thing, it came out that the 'dirty tricksters' were engaged in dirty tricks against democratic candidates, during the primaries, in order to try to influence the outcome. The strategy is to decide which candidate you don't want to run against, in the general, and sabotage him/her in the primaries, and which candidate you DO want to run against, and do whatever you can to help them.
They did things like; when a 'rally' was going to be held at a high school football field, they went in early, and painted the bleachers with slow drying paint. They would call Dominoes, and order 250 pizzas to be delivered to campaign headquarters, where someone would sign for them, and the campaign would end up paying for them, thereby depleting the campaign of $.
While some of this stuff seems rather high school-ish pranks, it can have a cumulative effect on a campaign. And, of coarse, the campaign THINKS its coming from their primary rival, and is unlikely to suspect their General election (potential) rival. Actually, wouldn't surprise me if there weren't more sophisticated things going on, as well. For instance, the 'lights out' ballot box stuffing, in Iowa; May have actually been done by BO's people, rather than Romneys. And, SOME of the large donations being funneled to Romney, may actually be coming from BO supporters, who want to ensure that Romney is BO's opponent.
I have no doubt this strategy has been done every election since Nixon, and is CERTAINLY being done now. It KILLS me that Repubs, who SAY their biggest priority is beating BO, don't see that he (and his 'supporters') are doing everything he/they can, to see that he runs against Romney, and, as you point out, to discredit RP.
Again, maybe you don't HAVE to 'fool ALL the people, All the time', you just have to fool enough of the people, for long enough.
Jim

[aljhoa]

Again, maybe you don't HAVE to 'fool ALL the people, All the time', you just have to fool enough of the people, for long enough.

The Elites think they own us. Some say they technically do own us in someway or another. All i know im not gona stand for that. Nobody owns be out myself. The U.S. is currently preparing for violence. We are seeing the beginnings of this. WW3 may become our reality very soon. The u.s./israel/ UK are planning thier attack on Iran. Russia is trying to warn us not to becuase there will be serious consiquences. But the elite dont care.. its just for their profit. anyone from 18-35 can be drafted.
InfiniteGUNRR 2 months ago


Verse 1:
You can't fool all the people all of the time
But if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall behind
Tell me who's got control of your mind? your world view?
Is it the news or the movie you're taking your girl to? (uh)
Know what I'm sayin cause Uncle Sam got a plan
If you examine what they tellin us then you will understand
What they plantin in the seeds of the next generation
Feeding our children miseducation
No one knows if there's UFOs or any life on mars
Or what they do when they up in the stars
Because I don't believe a word of what the president said
He filling our head with lies got us hypnotized
When he be speaking in cold words about crime and poverty
Drugs, welfare, prisons, guns and robbery
It really means us, there's no excuse for the slander
But what's good for the goose, is still good for the gander
See...
DEAD PREZ - PROPAGANDA (HD) - YouTube

Al

[rickoff]

Georgia Administrative Judge Malihi makes decision

Judge Malihi has decided that Barry can stay on the ballot in Georgia. In issuing his decision, Malihi cited a decision made by an Indiana judge, saying,
�The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.� Malihi then said, �For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in [the Indiana case], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.� In conclusion, Malihi stated, �The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs� allegations.�



Mark Hatfield, one of the attorneys who, along with attorney Van Irion, focused on the issue of the definition of �natural born citizen,� said the judge had ignored the issue of burden of proof. �If Obama has the burden of proof, and failed to show up, clearly he didn�t carry the burden."


Another attorney, Orly Taitz, represented several plaintiffs and brought in allegations of fake Social Security numbers and alternative names. She said Malihi �makes absolutely no sense because under Georgia law it is up to a candidate to prove his eligibility, and Obama proved nothing. He didn�t show up. He didn�t provide evidence.�


Judge Malihi had offered to grant the plaintiffs a default judgment when Barry and his lawyer Jablonski failed to show, but the plaintiffs asked to be allowed to present their evidence and have the judge decide the case on its merits. There was plenty of merit to the plaintiff's cases, but Malihi appears to have tossed all of that out of consideration, and focused instead on the non-evidenced supposition that Barry was born in Hawaii, and that this would somehow have made him a natural born citizen, as was stated by an Indiana judge. Malihi gave no consdideration whatsoever to the Supreme Court definition of "natural born citizen" as stated in the Minor v Happersett case. That case states: �The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.�


Quite obviously, Barry's father was not a US citizen, and thus he does not qualify as a natural born citizen by the Supreme Court definition, even if Barry was born in the USA, which has never been proven. It's too bad that Malihi didn't have the fortitude to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but then again he was probably strong-armed into deciding as he did. Perhaps Eric Holder offered him a federal appointment if he would look the other way in this case and rule in favor of Barry. The problem with this bad decision is that it now sets a precedent which Barry's lawyers will use in any other states' ineligibility cases. The plaintiffs lawyers said they are looking at an appeal, but I doubt anything will come of it.

[Nadda]

@dutchdivco

Great posts, and i pretty much agree. Whatever the cause is, the simple fact that Mccain and now "apparently" Romney are the two nominated republican candidates to face Obama convinces me something shady has to be gong on. Both Mccain and Romney are Obama lite. Even George Soros likes Romney. Weather it is real voter fraud or simple money funneling (which is suspicious Romney appears to get the most money...) it definitely has to be shady.

Ron Paul is the only real conservative candidate. Thought thats what Conservatives voters wanted...hmm. Shady.

[aljhoa]

Government Outrage - Forget "SOPA"... The government has already begun another attack on the Internet and free speech

Hitler is informed that ACTA is another way to stop the net - YouTube

What Is ACTA? - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Shady,?

I KNOW what you mean, NADDA, but shady implies something done behind the scenes; this has been done right in front of us.The 2 parties, being primarily concerned with their own interests, have grown closer together.

Just as big $ contributes eaqually to BOTH parties, so it doesn't matter who wins, they have influence.Look at what the leadership of the repub party has done over the last 10 years or so. Where is the fiscal restraint, small government during the Bush years, for example? They passed the 'Bush tax cuts' as a sop to conservative ideals, and then created the whole K street, Abromov machine, and built bridges to nowhere, etc.

The Democrats don't REALLY satisfy hardcore liberals, because they are doing the same thing, just as Repubs don't satisfy hardcore conservatives.Each gives enough sops to their base, to get re-elected, so they can continue to belly up to the feeding trough.

So, yeah I agree with you totally; something is rotten, the way it seems someone (other than Romney) is bound and detirmined to have HIM be the repub nominee.Makes me wonder if some of these conservative candidates were actually 'put up' just to split the conservative vote, so Romney could win? Seems obvious to me, other than by vote tampering, thats the ONLY way Romney could get the nomination.Jim

[dutchdivco]

Wow

This didn't reaaly occur to me, until I posted it, and now have had a chance to think about it.It seems obvious. We KNOW how badly Romney wants it, and his supporters as well. Granted, it COULD have been done by approaching potential candidates in an 'Up front' way, i.e. telling them "We want you to run, in order to divide the 'Conservative vote', so that Romney can win the nomination."
But, that wouldn't have been neccesary. All the Romney 'backers' (with $) would have needed to do, was approach Candidates who had announced, or who were forming exploratory committees, and offer 'funding'. At that stage in a campaign, thats (funding) what the candidate and his supporters are desperately looking for, and they aren't going to question the motives of any 'big donor', looking a gift horse in the mouth.
And so they fund several candidates as 'conservatives', in order to 'split the conservative vote', not giving any one of them near enough $ to be a serious threat to Romney, and 'withdrawing' their 'support' as soon as they have served their purpose.
In retrospect it seems obvious, when you look at the amount of $ each of the campaigns has reported taking in and spending.Romney, and his supporters, are trying to BUY the Repub nomination! If your willing to spend 15-20 million in one state (Florida) to knock out an opponent, whats spending 5-10 million, or less (each) as 'seed $' to 'encorage' 4-5 different 'conservative' candidates to run, so as to 'split the conservative vote' in the early primaries, and then, as you develop the illusion of "Momentum" and "Inevitability" in the early primaries, you "Dry up" that finanacial support to these conservative candidates who, unbeknonst to them, were actually 'working' to get YOU the nomination!

And, there is another possibility; as the Democratic nominee, (B.O.) you decide which candidate you would most like to run against, (Romney). You then have $ people approach 1 or more 'conservative candidates', and offer 'seed $' to fund their campaign, with the same goal as above; to split the conservative vote, so the candidate you want to run against wins the repub nomination.

Could even be BOTH of these scenarios are playing out, simultaneously.

The Bastids have been gaming the system for a long time, and have gotten fairly sophisticated in their methodology.Jim

[rickoff]

Where the money comes from



Paul
48 percent from small individual contributions
Ron Paul for Congress Committee, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Mason Capital Management, Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Overland Sheep, IBM*
Gingrich
43 percent from small individual contributions
Rock-Tenn Co, Poet LLC, First Fiscal Fund, Pull-A-Part Inc, Amway/Alticor Inc, State Mutual Insurance, American Fruits & Flavors, Streck Inc, Windway Capital, Wirco Inc*
Romney
10 percent from small individual contributions
Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, Price Waterhouse Coopers, EMC Corp, JP Morgan Chase*


* Note: The above figures were reported on OpenSecrets.org
The listed organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

When large individual contributions are considered, it is interesting to note that Newt's largest individual contributor is Sheldon Adelson, who operates two of the most elite casinos in Las Vegas: the Palazzo and the Venetian. Adelson is also listed by Forbes as the 16th wealthiest person on the planet. Romney may well be his own largest individual contributor, since we do know that he contributed more than $35 million of the $90 million raised in his 2008 campaign. The largest individual contributions in 2012, outside of Romney's personal fortune, came from the owners and employees of Goldman Sachs, and from John Paulson, a billionaire who made his money from Hedge Funds. When it comes to Barry's campaign warchest, I think we can be rather certain that George Soros is a leading contributor, but that he manages to do so in an indirect manner, mostly through contributions to Super PAC funds which don't require the names of individual or corporate contributors to be released. Incidentally, while Barry made a lot of noise over the SCOTUS decision to allow Super PAC's to operate in this manner, he is now admitting he will be jumping aboard the Super PAC train in his bid for reelection. Barry will likely rake in a lot of dough illegally from foreign donors, just as he did in his 2008 campaign.


The chart below was compiled by the Center For Responsive Politics, and shows how much in contributions each 2012 Presidential candidate had raised as of the end of 2011:



Note that as of 2011 year end Barry O had already raised more than twice as much for his campaign warchest as Mitt Romney had, Mitt had raised more than twice the amount Ron Paul had, and Ron Paul had raised more than double the amount Newt Gingrich had. These figures do not take into account the funds raised by Super PAC's, though, and Newt's resources would look much stronger when the pro-Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future's $12 million plus intake is figured in. The pro-Romney Super PAC Restoring Our Future leads the way, though, with more than $18 million raised. Barry O has of course had a three year head start on filling his reelection campaign coffers, and while Romney's recent intake level may very well be higher than Barry's, Barry most certainly has far more cash on hand at this time because he has not needed to spend any of it on attack ads yet, as the other candidates are doing that job for him. The Democrat money machine will continue to hold on to their money for the time being, and will rely mostly on media stories favoring Barry, up until the time that a Republican is nominated. After that, the battle will become quite ugly, with what I suspect will be the most vicious political attack ads of all time coming from both major parties. And of course it will all be a circus sideshow meant to divide the American public along party lines, and keep the public focused on everything except what really matters. Republicans will be focused only upon defeating Barry O, and Democrats will be focused only on keeping Barry in power. Very few will be focused on what needs to be done to save this nation, restore our Republic, defend our Constitution, and ensure survival of our rights, freedoms, and liberties.

[rickoff]

Sheriff Joe sets date for eligibility probe disclosure

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio has announced that the results of his Cold Case Posse investigation into Barry O's constitutional eligibility to be placed on the Arizona ballot will be made public on March 1, 2012. Arpaio has declined to release any of the posse�s conclusions in advance of the press conference, but is on record saying the findings may be �shocking� to many people.

Meanwhile, a group of Department of Justice (DOJ) officials from Washington, D.C., have begun meeting with officials of the Maricopa County Sheriff�s Office (MCSO) regarding the DOJ�s allegation of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics. The DOJ has threatened to take Arpaio and the MCSO to federal court, just as Arpaio prepares to issue the results of the Cold Case Posse�s investigation. They will do their best to stop sheriff Joe, but will they succeed? Arpaio is not one to be bullied so easily, and says, �If Eric Holder has evidence that the Maricopa County Sheriff�s Office has engaged in systematic violations of the civil rights of Hispanic, then show me the evidence. If the Justice Department wants to take me to court, I�m ready.�

[aljhoa]

Zougla online - Ενισχύουν αθόρυβα τις δυνάμεις τους οι Η�*Α στον Ινδικό

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.

Panetta: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? NO,
but we know that they are trying to develop a nuclear capability."
Panetta: Iran not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to build capability - YouTube!

Ron Paul "Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?" - YouTube

Al

[Shadesz]

Panetta: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? NO,
but we know that they are trying to develop a nuclear capability."
Panetta: Iran not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to build capability - YouTube!

Sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American...

The lies are getting so open and obvious...