"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

reply to post by m khan


in what kind of environment could they be expected to listen to us? i can't remember it happening in a good long while. was the purpose of the secret meeting to terrorize them into funneling money into their own pockets and those of their cronies?

tell me how this is a change from business as usual.

the only thing different is that we are beginning to realize the scale of the corruption.

Obama be a victim.

oh so sad he be
what can he do?
say no?
but won't they just kill him clone him and make the clone say yes?

we know.
oh well.

make your own choices.
grow a seedball food forest garden.
plowing agriculture be a reptilian teaching to make so you not have free time for spirituality.
they like large open fields, easy hunting.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by lowki]

Originally posted by m khan
March 13, 2008 Congress was tricked into allowing a secret meeting in which they were told that there would be an economic collapse in Sept 2008, an upheval mid 2009 in which members of Congress due to their voting records would be in danger of their lives from angry constituents but would be protected by DHS and fema and that part the of public would be preemptively rounded up and detained in fema camps and that we would have a North American Union w Mexico & Canada and the dollar be changed to an Amero.

I've seen this claim before. From what I've seen, it started because they had that closed door meeting.

Thing is, none of those things happened.

There wasn't an economic collapse.

There was no 'FEMA roundup' and detention.

There was no NAU.

There was no Amero.

There were plenty of rumors and conspiracy theories and paranoia. There were wild claims flying around the internet (much like it is now w/ Health care claims).

And people who bought into them.

And talked about being on this colored list or that.

But they didn't do anything. They didn't run for the hills, or hide in a bunker, or anything, from what I've seen.

Makes me wonder, are these people so sure these conspiracies they think will happen are real? Or are they just trying to inject a little ultra-freaky drama into an otherwise mundane existence?

Wallstreet Watch: March 2009 Article
www.wallstreetwatch.org...

12 Key Policy Decisions Led to Cataclysm

Financial deregulation led directly to the current economic meltdown. For the last three decades, government regulators, Congress and the executive branch, on a bipartisan basis, steadily eroded the regulatory system that restrained the financial sector from acting on its own worst tendencies. "Sold Out" details a dozen key steps to financial meltdown, revealing how industry pressure led to these deregulatory moves and their consequences:

1. 1. In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prohibited the merger of commercial banking and investment banking.

2. Regulatory rules permitted off-balance sheet accounting -- tricks that enabled banks to hide their liabilities.

3. The Clinton administration blocked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating financial derivatives -- which became the basis for massive speculation.

4. Congress in 2000 prohibited regulation of financial derivatives when it passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

5. The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 adopted a voluntary regulation scheme for investment banks that enabled them to incur much higher levels of debt.

6. Rules adopted by global regulators at the behest of the financial industry would enable commercial banks to determine their own capital reserve requirements, based on their internal "risk-assessment models."

7. Federal regulators refused to block widespread predatory lending practices earlier in this decade, failing to either issue appropriate regulations or even enforce existing ones.

8. Federal bank regulators claimed the power to supersede state consumer protection laws that could have diminished predatory lending and other abusive practices.

9. Federal rules prevent victims of abusive loans from suing firms that bought their loans from the banks that issued the original loan.

10. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expanded beyond their traditional scope of business and entered the subprime market, ultimately costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

11. The abandonment of antitrust and related regulatory principles enabled the creation of too-big-to-fail megabanks, which engaged in much riskier practices than smaller banks.

12. Beset by conflicts of interest, private credit rating companies incorrectly assessed the quality of mortgage-backed securities; a 2006 law handcuffed the SEC from properly regulating the firms.

The betrayal was bipartisan: about 55 percent of the political donations went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats, primarily reflecting the balance of power over the decade. Democrats took just more than half of the financial sector's 2008 election cycle contributions.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You know, Bill, I am beginning to get pissed off, not at the Senators or Congressmen, but at apathetic American's and ATS'ers.

Political Blame Game Ideology : It's Your Fault

It is not only the systems fault, it is the people who let it continue as usual.

That would be the American people who will not get out there and do something.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

You know, Bill, I am beginning to get pissed off, not at the Senators or Congressmen, but at apathetic American's and ATS'ers.

It is not only the systems fault, it is the people who let it continue as usual.

That would be the American people who will not get out there and do something.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Around 2:00 am last night, I was watching the movie "The Dark Knight". If you pay really close attention, the movie has an excellent life lesson about corruption. I cannot believe I am going to use Batman as an example.

Okay, here goes. In order to fix the corruption in government, you would have to walk the fine line between right and wrong. Thousands of people would have to be driven towards an orderly insurrection, which upholds the rule of law (constitution) by reacting in shades of gray. Symbols (leaders) are those who can stay within the confines of law, but they are not afraid of crossing the line through self-sacrifice. Many-many people in the United States fear loss. If the government were to use someone's family as bait, people would give in to the pressures of empathy. Real leaders understand one simple thing, "If you try to save everyone, you will loose everyone in the process." Once the first person dies on either side, my fellow Americans will give up the war. They fear loss to such a point that it has made them complacent. We are able to hide behind those laws that give us freedom, but the majority are afraid to defend them when applicable.

Here is another kicker. If the United States entered into a revolution, the bills you get in the mail will not stop. As a result of being too busy fighting the war, you end up loosing the shirt off your back. Banks will liquidate assets, people will be arrested for not paying bills, taxes, etc... Its a conundrum for all Americans. You would have to fight both the government, the private military, and corporations on all fronts. Not many people are willing to take a leap.

Checkmate. People will give up a war for a hot dinner, clothes, and the securities that are provided by the government. Not many people are willing to sacrifice it all for the greater good.

---- Edit Added ---

Here is another conundrum. Even though the government cannot implement a government runed military in the States, they can send in a corporate runed military. While it might be a direct violation of the Deceleration of Independence, the government will privately authorize such enforcement.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Pathos]

The sooner America fails as the grand institution of capitalism the better. I hope Obama falls so hard he is nearly paralyzed. I hope he as president will be a true hero and speak from the heart. I greatly hope that he will get up and stand for something other than his principal lobbyist backers.


Right now I see a shallow president who is very good and delivering a script on tv.

In terms of the current debate, over health care you should hear this song. Its about a young girl named Nell whose arm swelled up hen she was bit by a rat. The song is from 1970 and Its called Whiteys on the Moon.

www.youtube.com...

Its a severe indictment that is sadly, still relevant as ever.

Seems pretty 'par for the course' in dealing with the intricacies of bi-partisan politics dudes.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time.

This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861.

The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

Legally, technically and factually the Constitutional Government of the United States ceased to exist forever March 28, 1861. It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.) Legal doctrine says that when something falls into desuetude and continued non-use that it is rendered invalid.

Not only did Lincoln not have the legal authority to call Congress into session under the Constitution, the Congress being illegally sat, lacked a quorum (In law a minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct business of that group). A legislative body not meeting a quorum can not vote. The seceding States were only seceding over an unlawful attempt to infringe upon the Constitution and over an attempt to amend it illegally without a quorum and that is what caused the legal Congress to convene sine die. Lincoln’s illegal and dictatorial actions in decreeing Congress in session de facto while in sine die prevented the real Congress from ever reaching a Constitutionally legal agreement to call it back into session de jure by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Thus the Constitution was violated at its core and fell into desuetude.

There has not been one Constitutionally Legal Law passed since March 28, 1861.

When Lincoln called Congress back in to session illegally by Presidential Decree the Office of the President became a Dictatorship (for all you out there wondering why a democratic congress that despised Bush would keep passing all his Bills and requests for money) and began operating under the United States Code of law, which is nothing but Corporate Contract Law, and turned the States each into a Corporation which created States Codes of Contract Law under the United States (the District of Columbia) the parent Corporation.

Unfortunately you are simply wrong. Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution states that the President “ may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.”

Secondly I had the House of Representitives Historian read this blog to verify your claim. He responded this way, "I read through the blog that you referenced. Again, according to the Constitution, the President does have the power to call one or both houses into session; laws made under those circumstances are perfectly valid. The whole of the argument turns on that point. However, even if that Congress were called into session illegally, it doesn’t follow that every Congress thereafter would be unconstitutional.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Hayes
Researcher
Office of the Historian
U.S. House of Representatives
B-56 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ph.(202) 226-5525
Fx. (202) 226-2931

So, even if it was illegal, the rest of your argument is still wrong. Every Congress that has sat since then has been a legal Congress able to make laws.

Sorry!

reply to post by memarf1


It's a freeper type rant if I ever heard one. If what PP talked about in this thread worked, it's likely because there was some sympathizing.

Yes, "sine die" simply means to "without a day".

Adjournment Sine Die

adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.

It's a regular thing.


[edit on 9/22/2009 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by Pathos


Thanks for pointing this out.
Deregulation was the evil that brought about the economic conundrum. Dems are just as damn guilty as the GOP, but at least they don't scream "socialism" on every corner when it does come to mandates and regulation.

reply to post by memarf1


By the way even if Lincoln was lawfully entitled to decree Congress back in session (I am not conceding that point) the Congress being sat still would have lacked a Quorum and there is no disputing that no matter how you slice it.

A legislative body lacking a Quorum a minimum number of representatives needed to procedurally vote can not vote or pass laws. Therefore I am still correct and your Historian made no mention about that fact.

Protoplasmic Traveler
auctorictas principis

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Even if the Congress didn't have a Quorum, which I am not conceding that point considering the extraordinary circumstances, following the civil war they did. Thus your entire thread was simply wrong.

Not only that, but your lack of concession about my point is simply a lack of education. Go read the Constitution for gods sake!

Definition of Quorum - Majority Presence

The 136th congress had a total of 238 members in the House and 66 in the Senate. The 137th, or 1861 had 183 and 50 respectively after expulsions and secessions. You will notice that this is still a majority, or Quorum. Thus, we did have a Quorum and now your entire thread has no teeth.

It is interesting though that the very states we needed to have the big state souther state alliance in 1787 are the ones that seceded in the civil war. Not only that but over the same concessions that they would have left congress for in the first place had our founders not made those agreements allowing them to keep their slaves. Wow, politics never changes!

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Even if the Congress didn't have a Quorum, which I am not conceding that point considering the extraordinary circumstances, following the civil war they did. Thus your entire thread was simply wrong.

Not only that, but your lack of concession about my point is simply a lack of education. Go read the Constitution for gods sake!

Here is the deal. The Congress being sat illegally by dictatorial decree did not have a quorum. Nothing it legislated was lawful. It forced the votes through military dictatorship and decree.

That's just reality my friend.

The legal Congress had been to long out of session, the time frame for legal ellections passed the Constitution fell in to disuse and that's all based on sound legal principal and the fact that our Government does not follow the Constitution anymore.

As I stated in my original post, it doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it, legally, technically everything I have said is true.

Congress would have come back into session legally through negotiation had there been an earnest tempt instead of a dictatorial attempt.

The United States Codes of Law, and the State's Codes of Law are all unconstitutional.

I demonstrated with historical fact as well as to how the Supreme Court was subverted as well.

Your arguments are based solely on your individual desire to not have to deal with our runaway government and just when and how it started running away on us.

The House Historian's selective answering on this demonstrates that it can't be fully answered and further asking Congress to explain it's own illegal actions is like asking a Bank Robber to explain his.

Latin Legal Words have very precise legal meanings, how Wikipedia interpets them mean nothing. They use Latin Legal Words because they have precise legal meanings that only people who understand Latin understand so everyone else can be given a Wikipedia version that has no meaning.

The Congress being sat lacked a quorum none of it's votes are valid and Nation Wide Congressional Elections did not happen during the Civil War.

After the Civil War Military Law was imposed on the South.

The New Defacto Illegal Laws were enforced at gunpoint when in reality technically and procedurely there should have been a new Constitutional Convention, which they could not do because they new the South would not agree with it in a democratic process but only through one at the point of a gun barrel, and that my friend is not a free nation and our 600,000 illegal Corporate Laws hardly make for a free nation when under the Constitution there were only 3 repeat 3 Laws.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Listen, I think you need to do some fact checking because you are spreading lies and propaganda that is simply incorrect. There was a Quorum. We had a minimum number of delegates and more at those congresses. Second, if you would simply read your constitution and stop speculating that you think you know what you are talking about you would see that it wasn't a dictatorial rule it was a constitutionally provided right of the president given by the framers of that great document.

Third, my motivations are not the debate, although they have nothing to do with avoiding the other arguments on this thread, "My Friend". I simply don't like when rabble rousers like yourself get on threads like this and LIE!!! You are either lieing or not researching. The truth is out there, it took me about a minute to find, and then another couple of days to verify.

Go take a civics class!

Plus you didn't even consider what happened after the civil war! Everything went back to normal and we DEFINITELY had a Quorum then, regardless of what happened during that war!

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

reply to post by memarf1


Oh I see I am a rabble rouser!

Is that why it took you over a whole month to formulate a response and had to turn to Congress for it?

Lol talk about desperate.

There was no Quorum the South's real delegates weren't even there!

Talk about wishful thinking.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Actually Proto, you are sort of a bit of a rabble rouser.

You're entirely correct, but you are definitely a trouble maker!

The Southern States were and ARE occupied territory. They never rejoined the Union in the prescribed manner.

Lincoln and those damn Yankees (didn't realize they were two separate words until high school) did a number of things unconstitutional.

Lots and lots of things. They crushed the Tenth Amendment, and I still have a case of the redass about that.

But the Southern States that pulled out of the Union, never, correctly rejoined the union.

Technically, we aren't part of the union. To this day.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Your other claims of "Gun-Barrel" politics, don't even make any sense. The 3/5 rule in the constitution became immediately null and void in May 1865 after the civil war ended and thus the south gained additional representation b/c their population essentially increased and thus their representation had to adapt as well. They were economically destroyed and we began reconstruction. Once the war was over, regardless of what happened during the war, things went back to normal.(in a manner of speaking)

I see you really thought out your response in that last post. Congratulations on that one!

Originally posted by memarf1
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Your other claims of "Gun-Barrel" politics, don't even make any sense. The 3/5 rule in the constitution became immediately null and void in May 1865 after the civil war ended and thus the south gained additional representation b/c their population essentially increased and thus their representation had to adapt as well. They were economically destroyed and we began reconstruction. Once the war was over, regardless of what happened during the war, things went back to normal.(in a manner of speaking)

I see you really thought out your response in that last post. Congratulations on that one!

No things have never gone back to normal as both I and Dooper have pointed out my friend.

You serve the Dictators in Washington, I champion the people.

You represent the usurpers and liars.

I represent the facts and truth!

Everything I have posted to this thread is historical fact!