Author Topic: Senate Seeks to Create Caesar  (Read 759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« on: May 12, 2011, 06:50:19 AM »
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2011/05/08/senate-seeks-to-create-caesar/
Senate Seeks to Create Caesar

May 8th, 2011 by TMH

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The Apotheosis Of Barack Obama

Senatus Populusque Romanus — Imperius Rex et Populusque Americanus

While all of America is distracted and focused on the death of Osama bin Laden, our President and his minions have been fast at work laying the groundwork for S. 679: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 to speed through the Senate and then make its way into the House and then to the President to sign. Yes, the other hand is quickly forming into a dictatorial fist that is about to smash our Constitution.

As you will recall, the beginning of the end of liberty in Rome commenced with Augustus Caesar who compromised the authority of the Senate through the force of arms and basically the Senate became a facade. America is poised with this proposed bill, to morph immediately from a Republic into an empire with the privileged eunuchs of the Senate as window dressing and a dictator – the first American Caesar – at the country’s helm.

And leading the progressive charge is Chuck Schumer (D-NY). No big surprise there. Schumer is an elitist Marxist and a first class progressive who hates America almost as much as he loves power. He introduced S. 679 on March 30th, 2011. He was joined by a gaggle of progressives from the left and the right. This is something I have been warning Americans about for a long time. If we are to survive as a nation, we must rid ourselves of ALL progressives or our nation is doomed and freedom will be swept into the dustbin of history. Schumer’s esteemed list of constitutional traitors is as follows:

    Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
    Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
    Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)
    Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
    Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
    Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)
    Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
    Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
    Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
    Sen. John Reed (D-RI)
    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

From The Heritage Foundation, here is a succinct explanation of the bill:

    The bill reduces the number of presidential appointments that require the consent of the Senate and establishes within the executive branch a Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations. Individuals nominated to senior executive offices suffer slow and detailed background investigations and mounds of duplicative paperwork before a President sends their nominations to the Senate. After nomination, many nominees suffer time-consuming inaction or time-consuming and excruciating action as the Senate proceeds (or does not) with consideration of the nomination. The sponsors of S. 679 have identified a valid problem, but proposed the wrong solution. Congress should not enact S. 679.

In essence they want to give the President the sole power to appoint people to positions of his choosing within our government. Obama would be free to do this without the approval of the Senate. Senate approval of such positions is mandated by the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 2 under the “Appointments Clause”:

    … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (emphasis added)

This bill will do away with the checks and balances that separate an American form of government from those such as Venezuela and Brazil. Already we have power mongers such as Cass Sunstein our Regulatory Czar (more commonly known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and more aptly titled the Office of Government Propaganda) running amok across the US using agencies such as the EPA as a weapon of regulation and control. There is not a single area in our country that Sunstein does not have his claws sunk deep into. It should scare the crap out of Americans, but all I hear are crickets. The silence of capitulation seals our fate as surely as the thunderous applause of approval – so ends the Republic.

More from The Heritage Foundation:

    When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power.

    The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate’s consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office.

I know Americans have not forgotten about Obama’s string of Czars. Czars that he was supposed to downsize or get rid of. Czars, which in my personal viewpoint, were and still are illegal under the Constitution. But progressives never go away, they just shift… As has done so many of Obama’s Czars. With this sweeping bill, over 200 positions will no longer require Senate approval. Obama will dictate who are his powerful lieutenants and who will control America. The Senate will merely be a sham to parrot Obama’s dictates. With this bill, checks and balances will be effectively nullified.

What does that portend you say? One day, your right to own a gun will be gone, just regulated away. Businesses will be nationalized even more than they are now. Heavy regulation will ensue concerning communications and the Internet. Many, many private businesses will whither and die. You will be told what and how much to eat – food and gas rationing will become the norm. Poverty and squalor will become equal for all as wealth is redistributed to other nations. If there are elections, they will be a joke and pointless. There will be a few powerful elites and then the masses. Guess which camp you and I will be in?

Our best hope at this juncture is that this abomination will be stopped in the House. We must weed out the progressives and we must win in 2012. This country will not survive another four years of progressive policies. Not as a Republic and not as a free entity anyway.

The bitter irony on display here, is that the same jackals that have barked and snarled and feigned horror at “American Imperialism,” are the very ones who now howl their support for a true American empire. All hail Caesar!
_______________________________________________________________
"Schumer's esteemed list of constitutional traitors"
right, and he's at the top of that list
"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2011, 08:15:11 PM »
Things are getting bad when even the neocon-Heritage Foundation objects.  Of course nearly all the list of Senate co-sponsors are Joo/crypto.

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2011, 04:59:18 AM »
caesar it is

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25294
Obama's Libya Defense Makes Bush's Lawyers Look Smart

by David Swanson

   
Global Research, June 16, 2011
warisacrime.org


The arguments made to "legalize" war, torture, warrantless spying, and other crimes by John Yoo and Jay Bybee and their gang are looking rational, well-reasoned, and impeccably researched in comparison with Obama's latest "legalization" of the Libya War.

Here's the key section from Wednesday's report to Congress:

"Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad.   The President is of the view that the current U.S.  military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision.  U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.  U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."

Whatever the president's "foreign affairs powers" may be, they do not, under the U.S. Constitution, include the power to launch "military operations" or "hostilities" or "wars."  Nor has the distinction between "military operations" that involve what ordinary humans call warfare (blowing up buildings with missiles) and "hostilities" that qualify for regulation under the War Powers Resolution been previously established.  This distinction is as crazy as any that have come out of U.S. government lawyers in the past.

The War Powers Resolution forbids unconstitutional wars unless the United States is attacked.  But even ignoring that fact, as is the custom, the Resolution says right at the top:

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Anything from imminent involvement in hostilities to hostilities is covered.  There doesn't seem to be a gap left through which to exclude bombing people's homes in a non-hostile manner with non-combat troops as part of an overseas contingency operation.

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey remarks: "To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of 'hostilities' flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people."

Further down, the same resolution makes clear:

"For purposes of this joint resolution, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities."

So, the "constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition" is completely irrelevant, and would be even if it were true that a UN resolution was being adhered to.

The Obama report to Congress spends half its time claiming that the United States is not part of the NATO operation in any major way, and the other half warning that the NATO operation would collapse without the United States:

"If the United States military were to cease its participation in the NATO operation, it would seriously degrade the coalition's ability to execute and sustain its operation designed to protect Libyan civilians and to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, as authorized under UNSCR 1973.  Cessation of U.S. military activities in support of OUP would also significantly increase the level of risk for the remaining Allied and coalition forces conducting the operation, which in turn would likely lead to the withdrawal of participation in the operation."

The "limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions" is irrelevant.  The War Powers Act specifically sets a limit of 60 days, which has passed.  Moreover, not that it matters legally, but the House resolution to which this report was a response asked for some information that the report does not provide, including:

"The anticipated scope and duration of continued United States military involvement in support of NATO activities regarding Libya."

The report says the duration is limited, but that merely suggests it's not infinite.

I have my doubts even about that claim.

David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie"
"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2011, 07:42:48 AM »
Quote
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey remarks: "To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of 'hostilities' flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people."

Any means of forcing (via use of force) another country to behave in a manner in which they would not otherwise behave risks the consequence of that country returning the use of force, which in turn elevates the situation.  The constitution was written to require congressional approval before any such use of force, no matter how small.  There were no secret programs back then. 
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2011, 08:10:40 AM »
The constitution was written to require congressional approval
laws mean nothing to a agent of "change"

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18960
Obama's Coup Follows Path of Hitler's Enabling Law
August 2, 2011 • 8:49AM

Last night, under the influence of a terror campaign by Obama and his British and Wall Street backers, a majority of the US House of Representative signed off on a Hitler coup against the U.S. Constitution. Under this coup, the Congress will, as a first step, no longer have the power to decide on matters of spending—a specific violation of Section 1 of the nation's governing document. And that's just the beginning.

The specific measure which will eliminate the power of the Legislative Branch, is called by Obama the "Super-Congress." The SuperCongress will be composed of a 12-person board drawn from the Senate and the House, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. This board's immediate mandate would be to decide upon $1.5 trillion in budget cuts, both from entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) and defense. The proposals are required to be submitted by Nov. 23 of this year—and to be submitted to an up or down vote, with no filibuster allowed, within the month.

If the cuts are not agreed to, a so-called "enforcement" mechanism kicks in, which automatically triggers the $1.5 trillion in cuts, with alleged protections for Social Security Medicare beneficiaries, and the poor.

In other words, regardless of what the Congress decides, the cuts worked out by Obama and his cronies go into effect! Obama has made the Congress irrelevant.

With these provisions, Obama and his British backers are attempting to fill the loopholes in their previous attempted coup through the Catfood Commission. When that Commission failed to agree on a cut package to be submitted to Congress, the cuts died on the vine. Not this time, if Obama gets his way.

The Obama SuperCongress measure directly mirrors the Hitler Enabling Law (Ermaechtigungsgesetz) of March 1933, by which the German Reichstag "democratically" voted to give Hitler emergency powers by passing the "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich," which gave Hitler the right to govern on his own, and in contravention to the Constitution, without consulting the parliament for a period of four years.

How was it done? The parliamentarians "made a deal."

Specifically, the crucial agreement with Hitler was concluded with the Centre Party, headed by a Catholic priest named Ludwig Kaas. Kaas agreed to deliver votes for Hitler in exchange for assurances of protections for religious liberties and the continued existence of the Centre Party. Hitler acceded, promising to memorialize the guarantees in writing. The letter of guarantee wasn't forthcoming, but Kaas fulfilled his part of the bargain, on the promise that the letter was being drafted. Not surprisingly, it never came.

At that point, the vote was assured. Only 84 Social Democrats (their ranks diminished by arrests) opposed the Enabling Act. The Centre Party and the National People's Party decided to take Hitler at his word, permitting him to act on behalf of the parliament, including passing laws which deviated from the Constitution "as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and Reichsrat," and maintained the rights of the President.

The guarantees, as any sane person could see, were a farce. Within three months of the passage of the Enabling Act, all political parties but the Nazis had been banned. Hitler did not rule alongside the parliament, but effectively superseded it. It only met 12 times over the next 12 years—including the two sessions when it renewed the Enabling Act.

Only a cowardly idiot would not see the handwriting on the wall with Obama's Hitler coup today.

"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline Ajax

  • Lieutenant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2011, 08:31:11 AM »
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3830cong_hitler_coup.html
Congress Ratifies Obama's Hitler Coup

by Nancy Spannaus

[PDF version of this article]

Aug. 2—With the fate of the U.S. republic hanging in the balance, 269 members of the House of Representatives, on Aug. 1, cast their votes for President Barack Obama's copy of Adolf Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933, thus ratifying a measure that will, if implemented, rip up the American Constitution. Today, the Senate followed suit with a vote of 74 to 26, and sent the bill to Obama, who immediately signed it into law.

"This vote brings us that much closer to the imminent destruction of the United States," declared Lyndon LaRouche on the evening of Aug. 1. LaRouche is leading a major mobilization to stop Obama's coup. "The people who voted for it have committed an act of treason on behalf of a foreign power, whether they knew it or not."

Under the pretext that the U.S. budget had to be massively slashed in order to preserve U.S. solvency, British and Wall Street institutions had waged an extraordinary campaign to intimidate and brainwash the Congress into going along with Obama's "budget control act," which was agreed upon by the leaderships of the two Houses of Congress on Sunday night, July 31. But the evil content of the bill they crafted, and which has now been ratified, does not lie in the cuts per se, but rather, in the creation of a new body—what Obama calls a "Super-Congress"—to usurp the authority of the Congress itself on matters of budget policy.

The key asset of the London-Wall Street crowd in this endeavor was not, as popular wisdom claims, the Republican Party, but rather British puppet Barack Obama himself. As we will elaborate below, it was Obama, not the Republicans, who colluded with the British-controlled rating agencies to demand up to $4 trillion in budget cuts, and it was Obama, not the Republicans, who first proposed making cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid part of the package linked to the so-called debt ceiling. And finally, it was Obama, who has already created two special commissions to usurp the powers of Congress—the Independent Payment Advisory Board for Medicare, and the Catfood Commission (Committee on Fiscal Reform and Responsibility)—who demanded the creation of a "Super-Congress," which is to be empowered to decide on $1.5 trillion in cuts, including in entitlements, without any interference from the Congress, which can only vote them up or down. And if they vote them down, a nearly equal amount of draconian cuts are to be made automatically across the board.

To reverse this disaster, therefore, not only must the credit system of the United States be restored through the immediate reinstitution of the FDR Glass-Steagall Act, but British puppet Obama must be removed from office immediately, by Constitutional means.
Like Hitler's Enabling Law

The legislation being rammed through the Congress has the following elements:

    An initial cut of $1 trillion (over 10 years) from the Federal budget;
    The creation of a "Super-Congress," a 12-person body, composed of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, from the House and Senate, who are tasked to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts by Nov. 23 of this year, including from entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.
    This package will be "expedited" through Congress, without any chance for amendments or filibusters, or substantial debate. But, if it is not passed, or if no agreement is reached by the full Congress, at least $1.2 trillion in cuts will be imposed automatically, across the board.

Herein lies the coup, where Congress cedes, as a first step, its power to decide on matters of spending—a specific violation of Article I, Section 1 of the nation's founding document. And that's just the beginning. Regardless of what the Congress decides, the cuts worked out by Obama and his cronies go into effect! Obama has made the Congress irrelevant.

With these provisions, Obama and his British backers are attempting to fill the loopholes in their previous attempted coup through the Catfood Commission. When that Commission failed to agree on a package of budget cuts to be submitted to Congress, the cuts died on the vine. Not this time—if Obama gets his way.

The Obama Super-Congress measure directly mirrors the Hitler Enabling Law (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of March 1933, by which the German Reichstag "democratically" voted to give Hitler emergency powers, by passing the "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich," which gave Hitler the right to govern on his own, and in contravention to the Constitution, without consulting the parliament for a period of four years.

How was it done? The parliamentarians "made a deal."

Specifically, the crucial agreement with Hitler was concluded with the Center Party, headed by a Catholic priest named Ludwig Kaas. Kaas agreed to deliver votes for Hitler, in exchange for assurances of protections for religious liberties and the continued existence of the Center Party. Hitler acceded, promising to memorialize the guarantees in writing. The letter of guarantee wasn't forthcoming, but Kaas fulfilled his part of the bargain, on the promise that the letter was being drafted. Not surprisingly, it never came.

At that point, the vote was assured. Only 84 Social Democrats (their ranks diminished by arrests) opposed the Enabling Act. The Center Party and the National People's Party decided to take Hitler at his word, permitting him to act on behalf of the parliament, including passing laws which deviated from the Constitution, "as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and Reichsrat" (the two houses of parliament), and maintained the rights of the President.

The guarantees, as any sane person could see, were a farce. Within three months of the passage of the Enabling Act, all political parties but the Nazis had been banned. Hitler did not rule alongside the parliament, but effectively superseded it. It only met 12 times over the next 12 years—including the two sessions in which it renewed the Enabling Act.

Only a cowardly idiot would not see the handwriting on the wall with Obama's Hitler coup today.
On Behalf of a Foreign Power

In addition to violating the Constitution, from the Preamble on down, the Obama-Congressional deal in fact serves the interests of a foreign power, specifically, that power identifiable as the British-dominated international monetary system. To put it succinctly, the deal maintains the legitimacy of the trillions of dollars in private gambling debts, a large portion of which are in foreign money-centered banks, which the Obama Administration (like Bush before him) has been bailing out—and dictates an accelerating austerity regime which takes the cost of the bailout out of the living standards of the American people. In sum, it fulfills the long-standing goal of the British Empire to destroy the United States.

Among the leading agents of the supranational financial power, in addition to Obama, are the so-called financial rating agencies, which have wielded the threats to downgrade U.S. sovereign debt as a spur to forcing Congress to capitulate to this unconstitutional deal. Take the case of Standard & Poor's.

A House Financial Services Committee hearing July 27 provided the evidence against S&P, specifically suggesting that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and S&P executive David Beers, a Briton, may have started that wrecking ball swinging in the current "debt ceiling" crisis. Beers, a London School of Economics graduate, is S&P's head of "Sovereign Credit" ratings, based in London.

Both Republican Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Democrat Michael Capuano of Massachusetts forced the evidence of this collusion out at the July 27 hearing. What was shown was that Beers and Geithner (and other Treasury personnel) have been exchanging large numbers of e-mails about the U.S. credit rating since March 2011; that Beers put United States debt on "negative watch" in April; and that Beers and Geithner had been in "very regular, frequent contact, many times" since then on the issue. This last comes from hearing witness and S&P chairman Deven Sharma, who knows something about what goes on in Beers' Sovereign Credit department.

The direct attack on the United States went public when Beers, on July 4, told the London Financial Times and Bloomberg News that Congressional action to increase the U.S. debt ceiling would not suffice to save its AAA rating; that it would require something like a $4 trillion package of cuts and tax revenues to (supposedly) reduce U.S. deficits by that much in a decade. Immediately, Nerobama propelled himself into negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner, pushing what Obama called the "Big Deal": $4 trillion in cuts and tax increases, including "putting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table." He did this amid mass unemployment and negative employment growth in the nation.

Ever since then, certain members of Congress have endlessly repeated, "S&P says $4 trillion," in the debt debate, and the sane idea of simply increasing the debt ceiling (with investment demand for U.S. Treasury debt extremely high and stable) has been dropped from this disastrous debate. Although Sharma quickly backtracked at the July 27 hearing and said that "smaller agreements" on austerity might suffice to keep AAA, the crime had been committed.

Beers continued, in a Bloomberg interview July 28, to criticize the United States for "not having taken action as European countries have," a recipe for national suicide, and, now, even after the deal was done, S&P continues to suggest that it might have to downgrade U.S. debt because a full agreement on trillions in cuts has not yet been reached.
Why Listen to Them?

"There is no excuse for a Congressman to tolerate the actions of the rating agencies," said LaRouche Aug. 1. "These rating agencies must be closed down!" Referring to the fact that Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have been shown to have been conspiring with the London-centered rating agencies to force through the murderous cuts, LaRouche continued:

"They are engaged in treason. It is an act of treason to shut down the U.S. government, and these agencies are engaged in a conspiracy to shut down the U.S. government. Instead of them acting to shut down the government, the government should shut them down!"

LaRouche then referenced the well-documented reality that these very agencies "cost people billions, even trillions, with their fraudulent positive ratings for Enron, Lehman, mortgage-backed securities, while they are moving to shut down the U.S. government." In fact, S&P's malevolent role goes back even further, to 1975, when it took the lead role in downgrading New York City bonds, precipitating that city's financial crisis. Later the same year, it became the first rating agency to begin valuing mortgage-backed securities, the infamous instrument for mass looting of the U.S. population which made the bankers trillions, and helped trigger the blowout of 2008.

And the U.S. government has decided to listen to these criminals, to guide its economic decision-making?
The Only Line of Defense: Glass-Steagall

As LaRouche and LPAC have consistently made clear, the first step toward economic and fiscal sanity in the United States—and globally—is the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Law as implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Up to $20 trillions of dollars in fictitious, unpayable debt will be off-loaded from the Federal books by this means—and, if you doubt that figure, take a look at the recent GAO preliminary audit of the Fed (see following article), or the testimony of former TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky, or numerous other knowledgeable, and honest, sources.

Eliminating those gambling debts should help the United States' ability to pay its debts, don't you think?

And once that's done, the U.S. government can issue credit directed to the physical economic improvements so desperately needed to save our people, provide jobs, and restart the path to technological progress.

The relevant legislation for reinstituting Glass-Steagall already exists in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1489 and H.R. 2451), and between them, 35 Representatives, from both parties, are on board. At the same time, there is a growing movement among trade unions, the Democratic Party, and other constituency groups to force Congress to act now—before the disintegration of the economy goes any further.

As LaRouche put it on Aug. 1, if Obama's Hitler coup goes ahead, the U.S. population is looking at bodies piling up in the streets, soon, real soon. Some will be as a result of cutting energy assistance, others from cutting medical services, others from cutting jobless benefits and Social Security, to name only a few proximate causes. Others will come from the desperate social conditions that generally result from robbing a population of its future, not to mention its current ability to survive.

Glass-Steagall, implemented rapidly and combined with removing Obama, could reverse this coup, and stop these deaths, before it's too late. That requires a mobilization of the American population on a level not seen for decades. That is the challenge that lies before us.
   
"There is no longer any room for hope"

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2011, 10:40:41 AM »
''While all of America is distracted and focused on the (second) death of Osama bin Laden'', we are witnessing how they are ripping up the American Constitution.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2011, 11:35:39 AM »
Quote
''While all of America is distracted and focused on the (second) death of Osama bin Laden'', we are witnessing how they are ripping up the American Constitution.

Oops, I was wrong...  :-[

The Nine Lives of Osama bin Laden



He lives, he dies, he lives, he dies

Here's the most preposterous thing about this story.

After they "killed" him his last time, they took his body and threw it into the sea.

Arguably, the most wanted man in the world and the only proof that he was killed
the other day is this:

1. A woman on the scene said it was him

2. The people on the scene said it looked like him

3. DNA tests "conclusively" proved it was him...
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline OldTimes

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 4568
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2011, 12:13:32 PM »
I don't even understand why this is a story.

We lost control of Congress and our government a long time ago.  Americans can't even affect political decisions on a local level, let alone federal.

Offline EyeBelieve

  • General of the Army
  • *****
  • Posts: 8632
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2011, 07:11:28 PM »
I don't even understand why this is a story.

We lost control of Congress and our government a long time ago.  Americans can't even affect political decisions on a local level, let alone federal.

I see your point but now that things are really cracking up the Zios have to get double insurance.  Some congress-critters might start voting the 'wrong way' since they stand a good chance of being voted out anyway.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Senate Seeks to Create Caesar
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2011, 07:22:31 PM »

Quote
After they "killed" him his last time, they took his body and threw it into the sea.

Arguably, the most wanted man in the world and the only proof that he was killed
the other day is this:

1. A woman on the scene said it was him

2. The people on the scene said it looked like him

3. DNA tests "conclusively" proved it was him...


It does seem a bit fishy.
Nobody censors what they agree with