The American Ruling Class

[Aaron]

"Saving American Democracy"

The 'Supreme Court' doesn't CARE what you or I think is unconstitutional.

Right - but anything they decide can be overturned.

Bernie Sanders is proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. If the people really push hard enough, things happen in our favor but how bad do we want it?

Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed socialist, but it doesn't matter. Overturning Citizens vs. United is something I think most everyone can agree on. I know I'm completely for those 4 bullet points that this proposed amendment can make a reality.

This is a very powerful anti-fascist move and I'm glad to see it.

Petition - A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment : Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

The proposed amendment is here: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/me...-Democracy.pdf
A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment


Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.
The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:

• Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
• Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
• Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
• Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

[dutchdivco]

Aaron, (and Bernie Sanders); Yes and No

We can AMEND the Constitution, by creating a Constitutional amendment. But we can't (my understanding) un-write or re-write it. Ricks 'history lesson' aside, I guess I should say we're not SUPPOSED to be able to.

So, for instance we aren't supposed to be able to change the Constitution, to take away our freedom of speech, etc.

And every attempt, so far, to control the flow of $ into elections has run up against the 'freedom of speech', so I SUSPECT that if Bernie Sanders was successful, that the Court would probably rule it Unconstituional.

The system is just plain broken; and sometimes, things are so broken that you CAN'T 'fix' them; the only logical coarse of action is to scrap the whole thing, and start over from scratch.

Thing is; we humans aren't LOGICAL, and, everyone has a 'vested interest' in the system as it is. And, a fear of the unknown, so that we prefer a broken system, to no system at all. Still, the thing will fall of its own weight, eventually. Then, we'll HAVE to build something new. And, in time, it too will fail. Human BEANS; Legumes with legs, thats all we are! Might as well laugh, cause it sure beats cryin'. And its funny how fallin, seems a lot like flyin',......right up to the end! Jim

[Aaron]

revolution growing

We can AMEND the Constitution, by creating a Constitutional amendment. But we can't (my understanding) un-write or re-write it. Ricks 'history lesson' aside, I guess I should say we're not SUPPOSED to be able to.

So, for instance we aren't supposed to be able to change the Constitution, to take away our freedom of speech, etc.

And every attempt, so far, to control the flow of $ into elections has run up against the 'freedom of speech', so I SUSPECT that if Bernie Sanders was successful, that the Court would probably rule it Unconstituional.

Yes, that is the whole point to the constitutional amendment.

It is simply time to rule that spending money is not free speech. But that is the whole point to why a democracy is a scam. Those with money will always rule, make laws in their favor and create a separation between the few rich and the many poor. (Preaching to the choir - I know) Majority rule (democracy) is a scam and money buys votes. I don't think we'll get away from this unless we get back to a true Constitutional Republic. But I think it is possible to get the restrictions in place to prevent corporations from donating. It will be too fishy for a private individual to make a $10 million dollar donation for example.

The bogus supreme court will probably lean towards supporting money as free speech and if so, hopefully more people will wake up and we move closer to real revolutionary change. Either way the vote goes, it will just raise the awareness amongst the people that our personal liberties are being infringed upon.

The tighter the grip around the people, the more we slip through the fingers. We already won.

Just like what Ron Paul stands for. Even if he loses, which it is rigged so he will, after all is said and done, there are simply more people who has increased their awareness about the importance of preserving and taking back our personal liberties. We still win.

I think the powers that be already know they lost in the grand scheme of things - it is just a matter of time until the sheeple come to that conclusion. Not soon enough for my liking but it is in the right direction.

[aljhoa]

Brokered Convention

I have not seen any media coverage of this and
there was very few online articles even admitting Ron Paul won this straw poll.
Ron Paul Wins Idaho Poll with 43% 3/5/12 - YouTube

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Delegate Count


Mitt Romney talked to Fox News' Bill Hemmer Thursday morning.

"Look, we're not going to go to a brokered convention," he said.

"One or the other of us among the three or four that are running is going to get the delegates necessary to become the nominee. As it gets closer towards the end, it's going to be clear we've got someone who's in the strong lead. The states that remain will vote for that person and that person will get the delegates and become the nominee."
GOP 12: Romney: No brokered convention


Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes.
Brokered convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[dutchdivco]

Actually, Al

There is some dispute about this, and you may be talking about what you ACTUALLY 'see' happening, as opposed to the 'official' explantion. As I understand it; Delegates are 'duty bound' to vote for the Candidate they are 'pledged' to, for the FIRST vote.i.e to vote 'representing' the primary voters they are there to 'represent'.
If there is no clear winner on the first vote, it is called a "Contested" convention; i.e. we have a "Contest". Delegates are freed up to change their vote, because otherwise there would be no way to break the deadlock; subsequent votes would have the same result.
At this point there may be offers made, from Candidates to Delegates, or from Candidate to Candidate, in an attempt to change the vote totals, and 'break' the deadlock. If there is still no clear winner, THEN you get to a 'brokered' convention, where "Party elders", back in a 'smoke filled room', simply DECIDE who will be the winner, and pressure the other candidates to withdraw, and support the 'chosen' nominee, 'for the good of the Party'.

REALITY is, MOST people don't/haven't focused much attention on HOW delegates are selected, and have probably assumed it was done in such a way that their Primary vote 'counted'. And, the Party Elders, who set the system up, have counted on that indifference. They have made the process anything BUT transparent, so they could manipulate things, to control the outcome.
In the past, this has 'served them well', for the MOST part. This time, I think they may be 'hoist with their own Petard', as they don't seem to be having much success, in foisting their chosen nominee on the party. And, I'm not sure, until we actually GET to the convention, that ANYONE can say for certain how many delegates each candidate has.
Everyone seems to be making educated guesses, but no one knows, for sure. And, if we don't get a clear winner on the first ballot, for sure no one can say how delegates will vote, on the second ballot.
Of coarse, an additional 'safety valve' put in place by party leaders is the so-called 'Super Delegates'; party 'leaders' who in most states are not bound in their vote, even on the first ballot.
Maybe its wishful thinking, but I'm hoping for a 1964 re-do; a 'revolt' where the delegates refuse to accept the 'chosen' candidate of Romoney.
The other likelyhood is a re-do or 1976, where a 'moderate' candidate wins the nomination (Gerald Ford) only to loose in the General.Jim

[dutchdivco]

RP as VP???

Bear in mind the source, (Lamestream media). I BELIEVE I heard it on the Chris mathews Show, on NBC. Reporter said THEY heard it from someone high up in RP's campaign, but didn't say who. Supposedly this campaign person said RP KNOWS he won't have enough delegates to win the nomination, but won't be content with just giving a speach at the convention; he wants the # 2 spot, i.e.VP.
Now, this may just be someone trying to stir things up, but,....I can't see RP making such a deal with Romoney; RP's supporters would feel he had sold out.

Maybe Gingrich, theyve agreed on a lot, during the debates, MAYBE even Santorum, but no way Romoney. Is it just me, as I know I'm biased against Romoney.

On another note, turns out I agree with Osama on something. 'They' released details of some of the plots he was supposedly working on, and one was to 'take out' our Pres. Apperently he thought Joe Biden is an idiot, and would inevitably get the US involved in some kind of major crisis, soon after taking over the top spot. And, I agree with his assesment of JB. I always figured he was Obamas Insurance policy, cause the one thing that would be worse than Obama, would be Biden as Pres. Jim

[Aaron]

militarizing everything

Bogus preparedness act?

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House

Gives fed govt right to basically commandeer EVERYTHING.

The White House has set in motion the regulatory basis for an American version of Lenin's "War Communism" whereby the entire civilian economy is militarized and marshaled as the Leader directs through five specific Federal Departments, not unlike the all-powerful Ministries in Orwell's 1984. Notice which Department now has control over which aspects of your lives.

This section is what provides for the socialization of the means of production:

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

[blackchisel97]

Bogus preparedness act?

I don't think it is bogus;

The President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.

There is something rather "big" coming...

V

[Bizzy]

Bogus preparedness act?

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House

Gives fed govt right to basically commandeer EVERYTHING.

The White House has set in motion the regulatory basis for an American version of Lenin's "War Communism" whereby the entire civilian economy is militarized and marshaled as the Leader directs through five specific Federal Departments, not unlike the all-powerful Ministries in Orwell's 1984. Notice which Department now has control over which aspects of your lives.

This section is what provides for the socialization of the means of production:

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

Hi Aaron
Call me paranoid, but we keep food ammo etc hidden just for such a situation. I would strongly recommend it.
Even though we have elections in November, I honestly dont trust Komrad Obama to give up power after her looses. I hope I am wrong, but I can honestly see that egotistical Bas&*rd declaring martial law after the election for some bogus reason and declaring the Constitution void....then we are activated. Besides what we need we also keep track of his supporter, don't trust them thier kind gave up the Jews and the CDU in 1939
yes call me paranoid but prepared.
Bizzy

[Aaron]

preparedness

I don't think it is bogus;

I mean bogus as in unjustified - I know it is real - I posted a link to the whitehouse's own press release.

[blackchisel97]

I mean bogus as in unjustified - I know it is real - I posted a link to the whitehouse's own press release.

Yes, I agree. What I initially thought was that you have hard time believing it is real, just as I had. I got this from other source, not WH press.
There is also very strange info about Dinar trading on Monday at $14.38
and once again I came across NESARA (don't look at Wiki for credible info).

V

[Aaron]

Iraqi Dinar pricing

With the Iraqi Dinar, I don't know how it is every going to be priced at anything more than $1.80.

The reason is, all the agreements about oil pricing, etc... are based on a barrel of oil costing $40 USD.

When the Leo Wanta fund issue is resolved, then the oil will be repriced at $40 per barrel and the exchange rate for the Dinar will be $1.80, which would be 72 Iraqi Dinar, which seems to be what the oil barrel rate is supposed to be guaranteed at.

It is more complex than this but this is the idea to my understanding.

[blackchisel97]

With the Iraqi Dinar, I don't know how it is every going to be priced at anything more than $1.80.

The reason is, all the agreements about oil pricing, etc... are based on a barrel of oil costing $40 USD.

When the Leo Wanta fund issue is resolved, then the oil will be repriced at $40 per barrel and the exchange rate for the Dinar will be $1.80, which would be 72 Iraqi Dinar, which seems to be what the oil barrel rate is supposed to be guaranteed at.

It is more complex than this but this is the idea to my understanding.

I can't get my head around this either but I just listened to the conference call between bankers (stunned as we are). Apparently Wells Fargo also confirmed this as showing on their screens. I guess we'll see tomorrow.
I don't know what to make out of this.

V

[Aaron]

dinar

I wonder if those were real bankers.

In a Forbes article from last month, Wells Fargo spoke against all of this. Of course banks have the most fishy motives, but check out this article:

KurdishGlobe- New banknotes to be introduced in September

That means 100,000 dinars (which can be purchased for about $225 delivered and is worth about $80) will turn into 100 dinars. 100,000 > 100 dinars.

I don't know at what exchange rate.

[blackchisel97]

I wonder if those were real bankers.

In a Forbes article from last month, Wells Fargo spoke against all of this. Of course banks have the most fishy motives, but check out this article:

KurdishGlobe- New banknotes to be introduced in September

That means 100,000 dinars (which can be purchased for about $225 delivered and is worth about $80) will turn into 100 dinars. 100,000 > 100 dinars.

I don't know at what exchange rate.

I can't tell if they were real bankers. One strange thing was that the exchange rate was varying in different countries and quite alot, not in decimals but $. This isn't something common.

V