Crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution

reply to post by Hx3_1963


From the video (take it from 2:18; this is just after - )

Bachmann to Geithner: "...an international monetary standard as soon as the G20... Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested this morning by China and also by Russia?"

Geithner: "I would, yes."

...And the Federal Reserve Chair? -

"I would also."

WATCH BERNANKE'S BODY LANGUAGE as he says this.

Watch it again and again...

Originally posted by pause4thought


WATCH BERNANKE'S BODY LANGUAGE as he says this.

Watch it again and again...

Almost looks as if he's trying not to laugh or crack a smile.

It's nice to see more of our elected officials starting to ask the tough questions. The questions that we the people want answers to. When is enough enough? Where do we draw the line? The thoughts and guilt of the future I'm leaving for my son by my inaction has kept me from getting more than a few hours of sleep a night. I look at my girlfriend's kids and my nieces and nephews and feel ashamed. They have no clue what we are doing to them by not doing anything.

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Well, I've read throught he 3+ pages. Many who know my stances will remember that I actually fall left-of-center....not viruletnly left, of course. I think the center is very, very important.

As such, I nevertheless S&F the OP. BECAUSE this woman's comments seemed to stray dangerously close to advocating sedition. Last I heard that is a crime, but only if some prosecutor or prosecutor's office somewhere wishes to pursue it. Anyway, it's good to have this discussion out in the open.

I saw this on Friday's MSNBC 'Countdown' (ducking for cover now, expecting flaming arrows) but what struck me is here rhetoric was just wrong....especially her comments on Hannity's radio show, re: Jefferson.

She is conflating the American Revolution against the tyranny of the British Empire with the current politics of a Representational Democratic Republic, and the fact that she disagrees with some of her DULY ELECTED representatives (who, after all, were voted in by US citizens, and therefore are the 'employees' of those citizens)....

Light bulbs going off yet????

My point is, it sounded, to me, that here rhetoric would best have been left to an argument in 1774, against a REAL tyranny......

You can have what ever view you wish but this congress woman stands up for our constitution and the peoples rights. People say that she has crazy views just don't want to hear the truth.

Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geithner & Bernanke About A Global Currency

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker
You don't think we are heading for tyranny? Have you taken a look around lately? Pull your head out of the sand. The Executive Branch is appropriating powers that it has no right to. These powers are not granted by the constitution. It is time for a revolution. But a revolution does not necessarily mean guns and knives. A revolution can be carried out in a non-violent manner.
The citizens of this country have to be prepared to give their all, and may have to sacrifice some creature comforts, but a march on Washingtion is definitely called for.

reply to post by weedwhacker
You don't think we are heading for tyranny? Have you taken a look around lately? Pull your head out of the sand. The Executive Branch is appropriating powers that it has no right to. These powers are not granted by the constitution. It is time for a revolution. But a revolution does not necessarily mean guns and knives. A revolution can be carried out in a non-violent manner.
The citizens of this country have to be prepared to give their all, and may have to sacrifice some creature comforts, but a march on Washingtion is definitely called for.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


kettlebelly.....as to losing Constitutional rights, you are referring to the former Bush Administration, correct?

Bush/Cheney did more damage in seven and one-half years....well, to be fair, they did it in about five and one-half years when the Rebulicants had full control of the Excecutive AND the Legislative Branches.....

reply to post by redhatty
In invitation to the White House amounts to a Summons. What the Hell gives Obama the right to summon this man, whom I view as a true patriot, to the White House to discuss the "disturbing nature of these videos?"
Has he struck a nerve with the socialist agenda of this administration.
In my personal opinion, he should politely decline the invitation, inform the President that he is welcome to come visit him in his home, letting him know ahead of time he has guns in the house(if indeed he does)and no secret service agent will be allowed to search his home nor touch any of his guns.
After Obama works for HIM!

reply to post by weedwhacker
No, I refer to the fact that the Treasury Secretary wants the ability to step in and take over ANY business which might be in trouble and in danger of failing. The government has no right in my business or in yours. I don't agree with the infringement on the constitution by Bush/Cheny any more than I did Clinton/Gore.
I want this country to return to principles that it was founded on, and that were formulated in the constitution.
The Federal Government has taken to much power, and it is time for us to reclaim that power for the Citizens.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Well....I'd like to see a link to your claim Re: the Treasury Secretary and his 'alleged' claim to powers.....

From an economic standpoint, I see it as an Emergency Room scenario...or better yet, a battlefield mobile hospital where triage must be used to determine who is too damaged to live, and to focus on those that can be saved.

Still, it is not a descent into 'Socialism'....our Constitution, such as what's left of it after Bush/Cheney, is still in force.

Originally posted by Darky6K
She doesn't care about TPTB or the Federal Reserve; just the Democrats. She even said that Republicans are the only true Americans out there. So basically, go from an unofficial one party system to an official one party system. Created by killing and detaining all dissidents if this were done. She stood by Bush because of partisan lines. Not much different.

Great, now we can be a far-right theocracy.

I don't think any one is gonna follow this lady, but it's refreshing to see we are not the only ones and that word is growing. There are a lot of people who are waking up, I know anyone around me is aware. Becareful though they all have an agenda, and it could all lead to the same conclusion. WE the people need to stand up, now! Get rid of the FED

reply to post by weedwhacker
Will this suffice?

Boehner says Geithner nonbank plan a power grab
www.reuters.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's request for government authority to wind down failing non-bank financial firms is an unprecedented power grab, House Minority Leader John Boehner said on Tuesday.

"This is an unprecedented grab of power, and before that occurs, there ought to be a real debate about whether we should give that authority to the Treasury Secretary," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters. There were many unanswered questions, he said, but stopped short of saying flatly that he would oppose the plan.

Hmmm...seems this Rep sees something going on here...

reply to post by antimatter21
Get rid of the Fed, Congress and The Corportists that buy them off, for their own purposes!

U.S. boardroom group launches governance campaign
www.reuters.com...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. corporate directors' group on Tuesday recommended a slate of new governance principles for company boards, including better communication with investors on executive pay and improved oversight of business risks.

The recommendations by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), an educational group for boards that has about 10,000 members, come as director effectiveness has been questioned by investors at many big U.S. companies hard-hit by the economic crisis.

The Washington, D.C.-based group said boards of publicly traded companies should put greater focus on four areas: executive pay, risk oversight, corporate strategy and transparency. Board members are supposed to be investor watchdogs who oversee management.

The recommendations are the result of 18 months of collaboration with board members, business leaders and government officials, said Kenneth Daly, NACD president.

The idea is "to challenge every corporate board and individual director to restore public confidence in Corporate America," he said in a telephone interview. He said boards "need to be way more transparent and more aggressive in being able to describe what they do and why they do it."

More at Link...

Seems both partys have strayed from their "lines" as of late...

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Thanks for that link from Reuters, Hx.

Thing is, unless he is advising me to buy stock in the company that provides his spray-tan, I just don't take anything Boehner says very seriously.

Much like the 'budget' he trotted out couple of days ago.....he's full of theatre, and seems to be a bit of a loose cannon to boot...

I'll try this one more time...for now...

The Banker's Manefesto of 1892
www.thepoliticsofcommonsense.org...

:snip:

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

*As foreclosures mount, Florida court turns to 'rocket docket'*
www.cnn.com...

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

The above was taken from the "Banker's Manifest", for the private circulation among leading bankers only, taken from the "Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer" of January, 1934. The Banker's Manifesto ties in with U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934), to wit:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

The following is quoted from John Prukop of the Coalition of a Constitutional Washington:

The "plan" is to control all resources, human and natural. The control is not by elected public officials, but by a self-appointed oligarchy. This is born out by reading the details of Article 21 and 39 of the "Convention On Biological Diversity." This treaty declares there are no reservation of rights. Article 21 mandates that three international organizations, the UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, will direct and control "the policy, strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria relating to access to and utilization of resources" in each member country.

Does this not ring a bell???

See all the calls of the IMF/World Bank/WTO/UN these days...

The Federal Reserve and other Central Bankers are part of these institutions...

Geithner rescue package `robbery of the American people`
www.telegraph.co.uk...

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers
www.reuters.com...

Renewed Call For Congress To Read Bills
www.cbsnews.com...

U.N.'s Ban says slump may lead to political crisis
www.reuters.com...

:snip:

"Looking around the world we see a growing list of political instability. If we do not manage it properly, this crisis, I am concerned that this crisis may develop into global political instability," he said.

"If life goes much like this and harder ... social unrest will surely increase," he said. "That is why in London I will speak out forcefully for action to prevent the potential catastrophe in human development."

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, on Monday said the crisis would push millions into poverty and unemployment, risking social unrest and even war.

Ban used his Moscow speech to call on countries to use anti-crisis stimulus packages to help fight climate change.

"My answer is it would be very smart to invest a certain proportion of this stimulus package in green growth and by doing this we can catch two birds with one stone," he said.

"If we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the global stimulus packages let us be smart and tackle climate change at the same time."

Hmmm...

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....I'd like to see a link to your claim Re: the Treasury Secretary and his 'alleged' claim to powers.....

Will this do?

The Treasury Department said on Wednesday it will send proposals to Congress this week that would let it seize troubled non-bank financial firms, one day after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called for expanded powers in order to avoid possible future bailouts.

Geithner on Tuesday testified before lawmakers angry at big bonuses paid to executives of American International Group after the insurer got billions in government bailout funds. Treasury on Wednesday said the government could have acted differently if it already had the powers it now seeks when AIG got in trouble.

"It could have resolved AIG in an orderly manner that shared losses among equity and debt holders in a way that maintained confidence in the institution's ability to fulfill its obligations to insurance policyholders and other systemically important customers," Treasury said in a statement.

The proposals, which Treasury says would grant it powers over non-bank financial firms that are similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's authority to shut down banks, may face a rocky road on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans signaled they will oppose it because it concentrates too much authority in government hands.

House Republican leader John Boehner told reporters on Tuesday that Treasury's request for authority to shutter non-banks sounded like "an unprecedented grab of power."

But a prominent lobby, the Financial Services Roundtable, said it backs the idea as part of a broader regulatory overhaul that the Obama administration promises is coming.

It said the new resolution authority "must include consultation with a dedicated federal insurance regulator" to advise a conservator or receiver how to deal with a troubled non-bank firm.

The Treasury proposals will apply to financial firms, like insurers or possibly financing arms of some big industrial companies, that might pose risks to the entire financial system and that are not covered by the FDIC.

The Treasury wants the government to have the right to put a troubled non-bank financial firm into receivership or under care of a conservator, which could then either orchestrate an orderly reorganization or shut the firm down.

In its statement, Treasury suggested the expanded powers would reduce the need to put taxpayers' money at risk supporting financial firms because a conservator or receiver could sell off assets and raise money that way.

If a firm were in receivership, the receiver would also have the power to repudiate the firm's contracts, including those with employees.

Treasury said the proposals will be modeled after the system that permits the FDIC to take over troubled banks and either shut them down or hold them until they can be reorganized or sold to another banking organization.

It said the expanded authority could be funded by appropriating funds for it to the FDIC or through some form of assessment or fees that would be charged to firms that are covered by it, implying that the FDIC may be Treasury's favored agency for administering it.

Source

reply to post by weedwhacker

Where have you been? Have you not seen a freakin' newscast all week? Have you not checked you any news pages on the net. Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC. Did you bother to watch the testimony and grilling that he and Bernake got in Congress?
If you can't keep up, drop out, and let the rest of us press forward.

reply to post by redhatty
Thanks, redhatty, but if he hasn't been keeping up with the news, the he needs to keep quiet. Most of us here will do a google search and educate ourselves if we are not really up on the topic.
Thanks again.

reply to post by weedwhacker
Ah...not quite...

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
Ratified March 12, 1819
www.barefootsworld.net...

The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.

As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.

As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted. The original records of the original 13th amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum, the national archives and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until, by chance, researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states and territories until 1876, the last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.

The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.

For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.

This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.

The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.

But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.

In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th.

On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.

US continues to be in a permanent state of national emergency since March 9, 1933, and possibly as far back as the Civil War
--Senate report 93-549 (1973)

On April 15, 1861,
President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): "I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress."

Ceasar (President) is now in full control even over the Senate (Congress).

A Presidential dictatorship has been imposed on U.S. citizens. The sad thing is, "Most American people do not realize it yet."

The corporate government created in 1871 will continue to exist as long as:

"state of war" or "emergency" exists (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, War on Iraq, etc.),

the President does not terminate "martial" or "emergency" powers by Executive Order or decree, or

the people do not resist submission and terminate by restoring lawful civil courts, processes and procedures under authority of the "inherent political powers" of the people.
---------------------------
The original Thirteenth Amendment (no title of nobility), approved by 13 of the 17 states March 12, 1819 and thereby ratified, is the last proper draft of a de jure Amendment but is not recognized by the corporate (de facto) UNITED STATES.

The original 13th Amendment prohibits "Esquires" (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office.

The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure.
www.scratchinpost.net...

Continued below...

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

Whereas it is my understanding that:

the common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the right to Life, Freedom and the right to sole ownership of both property and land, and;

equality before, not under, the law is paramount and mandatory, and;

Thomas Jefferson said: A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

That "every man is independent of all laws except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institution formed by his fellow men without his consent." Cruden v Neale 2 NC.338(1796) 2 S.E. 70

no law can never govern the conduct of people on the land, only those who work in a capacity of government officials and agents and employees in their lawful duty to protect the life, liberty and property, and;

the lawful functions of any government cannot infringe upon the freedom and rights granted to men and women by their creator, and;

A society is defined as a number of persons joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and;

A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law only within that society, and:

A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and;

the United States of America is a federation of fifty artificial nation states, the government of each state bound by the Constitution for The United States of America, and;

The Constitution for The United States of America, and the public acts of all states and the federal government, established corporate legal entities called governments on the land known as the United States and the several States, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America is a document to which all public acts must abide, and;

the current acting federal government on the land commonly known of as the United States of America is a power de facto, is referred to as the United States, and has no authority over people, and;

The United States is a corporation as per public policy 29 USC 3002.

corporations are artificial legal entities that can contract with only with other legal entities by the hand of living agents, and only with full disclosure between the agents thereof, full disclosure of the definition of all words, the assumption that those definitions rest upon, and the implications that extend therefrom of all clauses of such contracts in order to claim authority, power or control over those contracting parties, and;

The Constitutions and public acts for The United States of America and the respective States do not bind nor extend to people on the land, only to artificial persons, and;

the Law Societies and Bar Associations of the United States and the respective states are the societies whose members create the statutes of the United States, therefore these statutes apply only to citizens of those societies, the artificial persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or those artificial persons whose trustee acts in his personal capacity as an employee of those societies, and;

The Constitution of The United States of America and it's public acts, the Constitutions and public acts of each of the respective states, and all de facto counterparts, apply only to citizens, residents, persons and the like - artificial persons representing the government officials, agents and employees of each level of governments, and;

a "person" "resident" or "citizen" of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights and all statutes, code, ordinances and by-laws of the United States and of all States and Municipalities refers to an artificial entity, and;

all law of the United States and respective States applies only to artificial persons, and those sworn to uphold these laws, and;

The United States and all governments and courts on the land commonly known of as United States of America are corporations, and have no authority over sovereign men and women on the land, and;

The US Code and State Codes, are commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and;

for something to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States it must be an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction pursuant to the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America, and;

that the term 'citizen' as defined in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the term used to denote the political status of the artificial entity of government employee, and;

A citizen is an artificial person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as per the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution for the United States, and is also subject to those corporate state entities which have contracted with the United States, and;

Continued Below...

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]