The American Ruling Class

[Mad Scientist]

And the subliminal programming form our masters is “Gee! Isn’t war fun? We can go around blowing up and breaking things.” And of course only the bad guys are the ones who will get hurt. Right? That is right, isn’t it?

[minoly]

A lie for a lie

Mitt Romney said he "actually cut" spending as Massachusetts governor

Fiscal year 2002 (no Romney influence): $22.47 billion
Fiscal year 2003 (partial-year Romney influence): $22.25 billion
Fiscal year 2004 (full-year Romney influence): $22.49 billion
Fiscal year 2005 (full-year Romney influence): $24.22 billion
Fiscal year 2006 (full-year Romney influence): $25.44 billion
Fiscal year 2007 (partial-year Romney influence): $27.92 billion

If you compare fiscal 2007 (the last year Romney had any influence on the budget) to fiscal 2002 (the last year before he had any influence), spending rose by about 24 percent over five years, or a little under 5 percent per year.

If you instead compare 2006 (the last all-Romney budget) to 2003 (the first partial Romney budget), the increase is 14 percent over three years, which is also an increase of just under 5 percent per year.

So however you look at it, nominal spending -- that is, the number of dollars spent, without any kind of mathematical adjustments -- increased on Romney’s watch. That makes his claim incorrect.

point is on these corp matters and on the .01% same old same old. Thanks for spelling that out. When you attack only one side it perpetuates the probability of flipping. Anyone know the status of RP's deal/negotiations with "the devil"...


RNC attempts to make Ron Paul ineligible for Republican nomination - Wilmington Elections 2012 | Examiner.com

[dutchdivco]

Test

"This is ONLY a test! If this were a REAL alert,....we'd all be DEAD by now!"LOL

Actually, I'm unable to 'pst' on another forum I'm on, so I'm trying to see if its JUST 'yahoo', or if there is something wrong with my 'puter. Hope no one minds! Jim

[rickoff]

Mitt Romney said he "actually cut" spending as Massachusetts governor

In the article you point to, which comes from Politifact.com, it is plainly understood from Mitt's actual statement that he was making a distinction between government growth at the federal level, and government growth in Massachusetts. Here's what Mitt actually said:

"Issue by issue, (voters) have an opportunity to see my record when I was governor of Massachusetts. We were able to cut back on the size of government. Actually, we didn't just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it. We pulled back on the spending of our state."

As I pointed out in post #3223, the Washington Post reported that under Mitt the the state of Massachusetts had actually slowed the annual rate of debt growth from 5.8 percent to 1.9 percent. This was achieved by cutting the size of government itself, which reduced the projected levels of spending that Massachusetts would have seen occur otherwise. Nowhere in the statement does Mitt claim that the state spent less and less money
during each year of his term in office, so the Politifact claim of his statement being false is not factual. The Politifact article even admitted that when inflation is accounted for, rather than simply the amount of state dollars spent in each year, "spending fell by about three-tenths of 1 percent over the five-year period discussed above, or by about four-tenths of 1 percent percent over the three-year alternative period."

Another thing to remember is that while Mitt did have a small amount of control, as governor, over efforts by liberals (who held a veto proof majority in both chambers of the Massachusetts legislature) to increase the size and costs of government agencies, he actually had no control of spending projects resulting from bond projects approved by the state's voters, and that is where the vast majority of state spending originates from. In terms of per capita income, Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and voters apparently have had no problem in voting for most bond projects that are laid before them. In contrast, I always vote against all bond projects here in Maine because I don't believe we should be borrowing and spending money we do not have.

Also, while in most states bond projects are approved and paid for at the local level (for example a town votes to approve a bond project to build a school addition or new town hall, at direct cost to the local taxpayers) the situation is different in Massachusetts, where all such projects are funded at the state level. This is a prime reason why Massachusetts ranks near the top of the list in state spending every year, and is just one more thing that Politifact does not take into account. I don't know if you noticed it, but the tool which Politifact used to pull up the inflation based figures for Massachusetts spending levels was created by The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an affiliate of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Thus, Politifact's "facts," even though actually showing a reduction in state spending when adjusted for inflation, are obviously biased and may not be entirely truthful. Looking at so called "facts" presented by socialist liberal organizations and taking them at face value is always a bad idea. We need to study both sides of an argument, and then do our own research to determine what is actually fact.

Once again, I am not a Romney supporter, and I detest the way in which the GOP has pulled every trick in the book to ensure Mitt wins the nomination while rejecting the hard fought efforts and results by other candidates and campaigns, especially that of Ron Paul. Speaking of Ron Paul, and your question regarding a purported "deal with the devil," I don't believe that Ron has made any deals. These reports stem from speculation by media pundits that Ron Paul supporters are winning concessions from the GOP to allow certain RP delegates to be seated at the National convention, and must therefore have made some kind of deal in order to gain these concessions. Fact is, though, Ron Paul delegates fought the establishment by submitting incontestable evidence of outright fraud in the delegate selection process of several states (possibly eleven or more) where Ron Paul had legitimately won those state delegates. All those delegates are determined to go to the convention, be seated, and vote to nominate Ron Paul, so the establishment tactic of ensuring a RP "loss" at the August 14 Nebraska convention (which several media pundits claim only gives RP four of the five states required for a nomination, rather than the several states he actually won) is likely to result in a showdown, despite the establishment hoping to placate Paul supporters by offering insignificant concessions. In states where Paul actually won but the establishment announced his defeat, the establishment position is that all delegates from those states must cast their vote for Romney. The GOP establishment is likely to see egg on their face, though, because RP delegates are firm on their stance to remain free to vote their conscience rather than the party line, and say they will vote for "no one but Paul." So things will definitely get interesting at the national convention on the 27th - that is if the Tampa convention is actually held on that date and in that place. Word is that hurricane Isaac may possibly threaten Tampa and necessitate either rescheduling the convention or moving it elsewhere. My own prediction is that hurricane Isaac will not become as major a focus as the storm brewing in the Ron Paul camp.

Say, Minoly, what is it that you are referring to when you mention "the .01% same old same old?" I'm familiar with the 'Occupy' movement, of course, which claims to be 99% of the people demonstrating against the 1% who are the wealthy elite and control 99% of the nation's wealth, but what is the .01%? That's one one hundredth of 1%, so is that an error or are you purposely separating the top one hundredth of the wealthy elitists (mostly Bilderberger regulars, I would suspect) as the ones that should be focused on? Just curious.

[minoly]

one tiny example of the .01% Mitt Romney's Top Donor On Wealth Inequality: The Wealthy Should Be Wealthier So All Can Benefit | Crooks and Liars

That's some nice math... the comment was not meant on anything the flip flopper said. the comment was on the money. this does not even include the many other methods this man has to squeeze money from the government. "Penalty vs Tax" really! we're smarter than that.

“I am big believer in getting money where the money is,” Romney says on the video, “The money is in Washington.”
The video, which was surreptitiously shot by Democratic opponents of Romney on Oct. 16, 2002, shows him addressing a group called the New Bedford Industrial Foundation. The Power Point presentation he uses lists ways to improve economic development in Massachusetts, including “boost federal involvement.”
“I want to go after every grant, every project, every department in Washington to assure that we are taking advantage of economic development opportunities,” Romney tells the group.

EXCLUSIVE: In ’02 Romney Touted D.C. Connections, Federal Funds - ABC News

where are those records
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57337547-503544/romney-paid-$100000-to-purge-computer-records-report-says/

[rickoff]

ICE agents sue Janet Napolitano and ICE director Morton!

Top 4 Reasons ICE Agents Sued Napolitano and Morton:

• Direct Violation of the Law.
  The DREAM Directive orders ICE agents not to put illegal entrants into deportation proceedings, which is a direct violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
• Unconstitutional Breach.
  The DREAM Directive is an unconstitutional breach of the Executive branch's duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed--not systematically set aside.
• Abuse of 'Discretion.'
  Instead of giving law enforcement officers the ability to do their jobs, the DREAM Directive ties their hands and prevents the officers from removing illegal aliens.
• Unauthorized Benefits to Illegal Aliens.
  The DREAM Directive makes millions of illegal aliens eligible for government benefits they have no legal right to. They will be given work permits and be allowed to stay at least two years. Only Congress can grant these benefits.

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes of the day

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." - James Madison, 4th President of the United States of America

Does anyone really not realize that we are currently living under tyrannical rule?

"The enemy of the people seeks to promote the enemy as the people." - David Icke

This was already accomplished decades ago, when the US "government" expanded the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWTEA) by declaring the people as the enemy. Recent passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) not only renewed what was stated in the TWTEA, but went a step further by granting executive powers to unilaterally decide whom among us represents an immediate or potential enemy threat, and provides options for dealing with that perceived threat which effectively removes all powers and rights of protection granted to us by the Constitution.

[aljhoa]

"The enemy of the people seeks to promote the enemy as the people." - [I]David Icke

Check out this interview with Jewish Zionist Rabbi Abe Finkelstein with a Christian Pastor James Wickstrom, where the Rabbi admits the following:-
Bodies of sacrificed children end up as Mcdonalds - David Icke's Official Forums

David Icke's Official Forums - James vs Rabbi - Five Parts


Al

[aljhoa]

Does anyone really not realize that we are currently living under tyrannical rule?

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I came to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.
But to bring a sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Once again, I find myself in agreemant with you, (Post 3229). Both parties are 'conning' there members or constituencies, and BOTH are lieing to the American people about what they are doing, about the positions of the 'other side', etc.
I, too will vote for R.P, in the election for 'corporate officers', even if I have to write in. The way the Repubs pushed Romoney on us, helped me to see thru the lies and B.S. of the repub party; and the Dems are no better. They also promise things to their liberal base, which they have no intention of dilivering on, in order to get their votes.
Minoly (no offence, guys!) 'buys into' the lies of the Dems, and Bizzy 'buys into' the lies of the Repubs; NEITHER party 'deserves' our vote! A 'pox' on BOTH their houses, I say! Jim

[Bizzy]

Once again, I find myself in agreemant with you, (Post 3229). Both parties are 'conning' there members or constituencies, and BOTH are lieing to the American people about what they are doing, about the positions of the 'other side', etc.
I, too will vote for R.P, in the election for 'corporate officers', even if I have to write in. The way the Repubs pushed Romoney on us, helped me to see thru the lies and B.S. of the repub party; and the Dems are no better. They also promise things to their liberal base, which they have no intention of dilivering on, in order to get their votes.
Minoly (no offence, guys!) 'buys into' the lies of the Dems, and Bizzy 'buys into' the lies of the Repubs; NEITHER party 'deserves' our vote! A 'pox' on BOTH their houses, I say! Jim

Hi Jim
No offense taken ALTHOUGH....I do have to say that I do not agree with everything that Romney says I see him as the lesser of two evils between Komard Obama and Mitt.

Whether you think Ron Paul got a raw deal from the party or not, the fact of the matter remains that Ron Paul can not get elected as of now. Whether you like it or not the choice is down to two people Obama and Romney; Paul is no longer a viable option... We as conservatives need to put the primary behind us and work together to rid ourselves of the plague known as the Obama administration. Whether we like it or not there are now only two choices that matter in November ...do you want 4 more years of Obama or do you want to get rid of him. You are either with Romney and against Obama or you are with Obama and against Romney. I am sorry to break it to you fellows but that is honestly what the race has come down to at this point. So at this point in the election you must ask yourself do you want Obama again or not?
Bizzy

[Web000x]

Hi Jim
No offense taken ALTHOUGH....I do have to say that I do not agree with everything that Romney says I see him as the lesser of two evils between Komard Obama and Mitt.

Whether you think Ron Paul got a raw deal from the party or not, the fact of the matter remains that Ron Paul can not get elected as of now. Whether you like it or not the choice is down to two people Obama and Romney; Paul is no longer a viable option... We as conservatives need to put the primary behind us and work together to rid ourselves of the plague known as the Obama administration. Whether we like it or not there are now only two choices that matter in November ...do you want 4 more years of Obama or do you want to get rid of him. You are either with Romney and against Obama or you are with Obama and against Romney. I am sorry to break it to you fellows but that is honestly what the race has come down to at this point. So at this point in the election you must ask yourself do you want Obama again or not?
Bizzy

No offense, but this is the kind of thinking that 'forces' everybody to file in line and continue to serve a corrupt, failed system. I urge all of you to vote with integrity. Don't compromise. If that means writing in the name a candidate that you see fit, so be it. We will get no where unless we start deviating from the 'official choices'. Stand up for what you believe is right.

Dave

[Bizzy]

No offense, but this is the kind of thinking that 'forces' everybody to file in line and continue to serve a corrupt, failed system. I urge all of you to vote with integrity. Don't compromise. If that means writing in the name a candidate that you see fit, so be it. We will get no where unless we start deviating from the 'official choices'. Stand up for what you believe is right.

Dave

Hi Dave
I disagree completely. The primaries are a time for the party to find its soul and for its member to voice thier opinions such as yours. The party members have made thier voice heard and it is Romney(like it or not). Now it is time to unite to defeat Obama...This election is about saving our country and getting that marxist out of the white house. I would do ANYTHING and vote for ANYONE to save this country from another term under Komrad Obama. He is evil personified....The time for disagrement is over we must be united to defeat Komard Obama and his marixst bretheren.

The only people who want others to vote for Paul instead of Romney are those who would rather have Obama. ...I would rather die than have that happen. Bizzy

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Great post

August 16, 2012
Carthage, Tunisia

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has made an admirable habit of enraging western governments over the last few years, particularly the United States.

Most notably, his release of classified diplomatic documents in 2010 proved ruthlessly embarrassing, shining a spotlight on the absurd,
petty little world of international relations.

Ever since, the US government has done everything it can to stop him. Short of assassination. They shut down his website, but mirror sites instantly popped up. They sought legal action, but their efforts have been impeded by the bureaucratic deftness of his attorneys. They froze his bank accounts… but donations have poured in from all over the world.

Along the way, Uncle Sam co-opted a number of allied nations to set aside their principles for the sake of US interests–

Switzerland rolled over immediately and shuttered Assange’s bank accounts.

Australia (his home country) has remained conspicuously silent on the matter, raising not a single word of protest in his defense. One high ranking Aussie politician even publicly suggested that Assange should be killed.

Sweden has happily played along, trumping up dubious allegations about Assange and issuing an international arrest warrant.

And now there’s the UK, where Assange has been based. The British government located and arrested him, yet after his legal team was able to secure bail and delay extradition, Assange sought refuge at the Ecuadoran embassy in London. He’s been living there for two months in violation of his bail.

Assange knows that, if extradited to Sweden, he’ll be shipped off to face the death penalty in the US… so the stakes are clearly high. He even petitioned Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa for political asylum, and just hours ago, Correa agreed.

Swarms of British police have now descended on the Ecuadoran embassy in London. This, on the heels of the British Foreign Ministry issuing a warning letter to Ecuador’s government threatening to “take actions in order to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the [Ecuadoran] embassy.”

Such a move would be appalling, to say the least.

Embassies are hallowed sovereign ground, not to be trespassed. Ever. This is the most sacrosanct, fundamental, inviolable principle of international relations, explicitly codified in both the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations (1963).

Article 27 of the latter, for example, states that “the receiving State [the UK in this case] shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the consular premises, together with the property of the consular post and the consular archives.”

International law seems pretty obvious here. Yet British police stand ready to storm the embassy, arrest Assange, and tear down decades of diplomatic precedent.

In a way this is almost poetic. Assange is the man who exposed western diplomacy for the fraud that it is. That he would be sent to his death by an egregious violation of its most fundamental principle seems strangely appropriate.

Regardless, the whole affair is perhaps the foulest example that western governments will ignore their own laws, or selectively apply them, whenever they see fit.

Legal precedent means nothing. Rule of law means nothing. Free speech means nothing. Their own treaties mean nothing. It’s unbelievable. Anyone in the west who honestly thinks he’s still living in a free society is either a fool or completely out of touch.

If that seems too radical an idea, consider that ECUADOR is now the only nation which stands to defend freedom and human rights against an assault from the United States, the United Kingdom, and their spineless allies.

The west has just become a giant banana republic. Have you hit your breaking point yet? If not now… when?
The west has just become a giant banana republic - Business Insider

Al

SHAFTED FROM BEGINING TO END. I think the title of this thread should be changed to include the whole world not just America, the same things happen in Europe as well.

The roots came from England, Irland and Spain, the problem is the branches became bigger than the roots, but create a big enough storm and the branches fall and the roots become up rooted, it is about time we created that storm.

a very pissed off

Mike

[dutchdivco]

Bizzy

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I agree with what Web said; Remember, if everyone who SAID they voted for Ross Perot, (another R.P., hm!) HAD really voted for him, he probably would have won!
What you aren't grasping is that there is NO difference between Obummer and Romoney; they are the SAME! So, by voting for Romoney, you ARE voting for Obummer; thats what 'same old wine, in a brand new bottle' MEANS.
They are both 'technocrats', and 'pragmatists', and well, politicians, which means they are liars.If you go to a restaurant, wanting a steak. And they say "Sorry, sir, but all we have is cyanide sandwiches, or stricknine sandwiches", would you say, "Well, since thats my only choices, I'll have the stricknine!",....Or, would you get the HE** out of that restaurant, as quickly as possible?
My view is that there is NO choice, when Romoney and Obummer are on the menu.Both will increase the size and power of fed. government, and of the pres., and BOTH will thereby reduce your personal liberty.And BOTH are 'in the pocket' of big $ interests, and will screw you blue, in the end.But, we are each entitled to our opinions, and to vote for whom we choose, at least FOR NOW! Jim