Trump ... dead man walking

[Calz]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

So have you personally done this?
[I left FICA / Socialist InSecurity in 1992-3.]

How does it work???
[When asked for "my number" I reply that it is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination. If asked again, I repeat my objection.]

Okay ... step one .... withdrawing from social security.

When asked for my number

by whom????

Someone asks for your number and you suggest it is against your religious beliefs ...

How does that take you out of the system?



Perhaps I am not the brightest bulb on the tree so can you expand?


Was there something you did to initiate contact with the social security system to prompt that?


How did you leave in 1992-3?

[Calz]

Well here's the deal.

My trust in the "legal system" is now zero.

That is why this Trump "event" is so interesting.


I can only sit back and observe.

[ozmirage]

Posted by Calz (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)

So have you personally done this?
[I left FICA / Socialist InSecurity in 1992-3.]

How does it work???
[When asked for "my number" I reply that it is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination. If asked again, I repeat my objection.]

Okay ... step one .... withdrawing from social security.

When asked for my number

by whom????

Someone asks for your number and you suggest it is against your religious beliefs ...

How does that take you out of the system?

Perhaps I am not the brightest bulb on the tree so can you expand?

Was there something you did to initiate contact with the social security system to prompt that?

How did you leave in 1992-3?

When I inquired as to the official mode to withdraw, I was answered with silence.
. . .

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
. . .

The bottom line - the account and number are THEIR means to track "voluntary participants."
"They" will not divulge how one ceases to be a volunteer.

Not unlike being on a sinking ship, you do not need permission to ABANDON the sinking ship and head for dry land.

As to the related benefits of participation - usury, public charity (entitlements), and so forth, you cease accessing them, as well.

Anecdote flag on
All the people I personally knew who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common : active SSN and an open interest bearing bank account. All the people I personally knew who were left alone had two things in common : NO SSN nor a bank account.
. . .

Banksters won't let unnumbered Americans "accidentally" open an interest bearing account, bless their hearts.

Old Testament condemnation of usury (interest)
(If he beget a son that) Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
- - - Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV)

If I understand this, it states that usurers are abominations under a death sentence, and the blame for his death is upon his own hands - not the one who kills him.

You may also recall that the sole account of Jesus getting violent is when he whips the usurers (money changers) out of the temple. Remember, Jesus forgives those who crucify him, but whips the usurers.

Coincidentally, I think the government does "Trust in God" and as long as they restrict their abuse to enumerated usurers, God will NOT intervene and inflict "Divine Wrath" on behalf of the suffering masses. Government does refrain from harassing those who are "outside" the system, as evidenced by the Amish, Mennonites, and other sects who refuse FICA and usury.

To put it delicately, most Americans, especially Christians, are in violation of their own religious rules when they engage in usury, the abomination. They are "dead men" according to their own Scripture... infidels... unfaithful.

Thus one can use RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE as grounds for refusal to participate in their ABOMINATION.

There are many more aspects, but this is the short answer.

For more info on pauperization via FICA:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ons/topics/361

[Calz]

Thank you.

I need some sleep and family time.

This is fascinating. I hope others will take up the conversation.

Ah if only grip were still here ... but I digress.

[ozmirage]

HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
=\=\=\=\=
How did a nation of sovereigns without subjects, endowed with inalienable rights, liberties, powers and privileges, that governments were instituted to secure, become transformed into a constitutionally limited indirect democratic socialist totalitarian police state, with compulsory charity (slavery), loss of endowed rights, required to get government permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, cut hair, operate a business, hunt, fish, build a house, own land, marry or own a dog?
How did government get the power to abolish liberty by prior restraint?

Short answer : CONSENT.

Long answer : CONSENT.... and ignorance.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments have two jobs - - -
Job #1 : secure (endowed) rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.

How / when did we consent to be governed?

Answer: volunteering to be subject citizens is #1.

Citizens, by definition, are subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, that effectively abrogate endowed rights and liberties. To illustrate, from day one, militia duty involved the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command. Obviously, one so obligated has no right to life nor liberty.

Yet, the very foundation of the republican form is that the American people are endowed with natural rights, natural and personal liberty as well as absolute ownership of one’s person, labor, and all that one acquires by one’s harmless enterprise (private property). Absent consent, all government is authorized to do is secure rights (prosecute trespass, adjudicate disputes, defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

The republican form is still the law of the land. Check your own state constitution and statutes (not the code) for proof that private property is still protected, that inhabitants with domiciles (non-residents) do not need permission (license) to exercise their endowed rights and liberties, and that no law can accidentally impair a private right (without express consent of the governed) or trespass upon private property.

And even if the law fails to explicitly state the exceptions, there is still a remedy.

SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1375

MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.979

If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience.

(This exclusion is in addition to exemptions, exclusions, and clauses based on the law not violating endowed rights and liberties of the sovereign people.)

Americans are victims of the world’s greatest propaganda ministry - a ministry that has effectively eradicated any memory of their astounding birthright - the republican form of government.

In its place, Americans were misled into consenting to be subjects and worse, paupers at law (status criminals) via voluntary participation in FICA / Socialist InSecurity - a vile “tax and bribe” scam that abrogated the U.S. Constitution - by your consent. Millions believe they “paid into” a Trust Fund and are “owed” benefits, oblivious to the consequences of their folly. Millions have been tricked into defending their tormentors, and embracing socialist chains, as they fight over scraps tossed to them from their new masters.

In addition to submission to the state and loss of rights, via pauperization, contracting with usurers (banks) sealed our fate. Every “signature card” is evidence that the account holder agrees to abide by the “rules of the bank.” And in case you didn’t know, the U.S. governor of “the bank” (IMF, World Bank, etc) is our friend, the Secretary of Treasury - who is granted preapproved powers for the duration of the EMERGENCY (Title 12 USC Sec. 95a, 95b) and shall not be paid by the U.S. government (Title 22 USC Sec. 286(a)(d)). Thus “our consent” binds us to agreements that are outside of the constitutional powers of the servant government - who went bankrupt in 1933.

Do not believe me - go read the law.

Where to start
- - -
Determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:

1. national v. citizen
2. sovereign v. subject
3. individual v. person
4. inhabitant v. resident
5. domicile v. residence
6. natural liberty v. civil liberty
7. personal liberty v. political liberty
8. private property v. estate (real and personal property)
9. absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

...
If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand what has happened to the united States of America and the republican form of government promised to the American people. (See: Art.4, Sec.4, USCON)

{When you check your own state’s constitution and laws, pay attention to trigger words : inhabitant, domicile, private property, common law, natural liberty, personal liberty, rights, powers, immunities, and sovereignty. Pay attention to the obligated party identified in the statute. Also note when the statute explicitly recognizes that the common law or any right derived from the common law supersedes it.}

[T Smith]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

Posted by Calz (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)

So have you personally done this?
[I left FICA / Socialist InSecurity in 1992-3.]

How does it work???
[When asked for "my number" I reply that it is against my religious beliefs to participate in that abomination. If asked again, I repeat my objection.]

Okay ... step one .... withdrawing from social security.

When asked for my number

by whom????

Someone asks for your number and you suggest it is against your religious beliefs ...

How does that take you out of the system?

Perhaps I am not the brightest bulb on the tree so can you expand?

Was there something you did to initiate contact with the social security system to prompt that?

How did you leave in 1992-3?

When I inquired as to the official mode to withdraw, I was answered with silence.
. . .

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
. . .

The bottom line - the account and number are THEIR means to track "voluntary participants."
"They" will not divulge how one ceases to be a volunteer.

Not unlike being on a sinking ship, you do not need permission to ABANDON the sinking ship and head for dry land.

As to the related benefits of participation - usury, public charity (entitlements), and so forth, you cease accessing them, as well.

Anecdote flag on
All the people I personally knew who were hassled by the Eye Are Us had two things in common : active SSN and an open interest bearing bank account. All the people I personally knew who were left alone had two things in common : NO SSN nor a bank account.
. . .

Banksters won't let unnumbered Americans "accidentally" open an interest bearing account, bless their hearts.

Old Testament condemnation of usury (interest)
(If he beget a son that) Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
- - - Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV)

If I understand this, it states that usurers are abominations under a death sentence, and the blame for his death is upon his own hands - not the one who kills him.

You may also recall that the sole account of Jesus getting violent is when he whips the usurers (money changers) out of the temple. Remember, Jesus forgives those who crucify him, but whips the usurers.

Coincidentally, I think the government does "Trust in God" and as long as they restrict their abuse to enumerated usurers, God will NOT intervene and inflict "Divine Wrath" on behalf of the suffering masses. Government does refrain from harassing those who are "outside" the system, as evidenced by the Amish, Mennonites, and other sects who refuse FICA and usury.

To put it delicately, most Americans, especially Christians, are in violation of their own religious rules when they engage in usury, the abomination. They are "dead men" according to their own Scripture... infidels... unfaithful.

Thus one can use RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE as grounds for refusal to participate in their ABOMINATION.

There are many more aspects, but this is the short answer.

For more info on pauperization via FICA:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ons/topics/361

The problem is, as I see it, it is difficult to impossible to cite the law of the land, as either a defense or right, in a lawless land.

There may be a laws and rights on paper, but until the people en mass agree to enforce--or even acknowledge them, the law itself is meaningless.

[ozmirage]

Posted by T Smith (here)
The problem is, as I see it, it is difficult to impossible to cite the law of the land, as either a defense or right, in a lawless land.

There may be a laws and rights on paper, but until the people en mass agree to enforce--or even acknowledge them, the law itself is meaningless.

I understand the objection, but disagree with it.
Before I read law, I, too, was bamboozled into meek obedience.
When you are ignorant of the law, you cannot use it to defend your rights.

Do not believe me - go to your county courthouse law library and READ law for yourself. If I told you what you will find in the law, you wouldn't believe me. Shucks, if I went back in time, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either. But if you do go to the county courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

[ozmirage]

Call me old fashioned, but I agree with what Coolidge said: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

● I prefer the republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant. I like it when government secures endowed rights, but can only govern those who consent.

● But if folks want the democratic form of government, where the people are subjects and the government rules them, who am I to say they can't. They can consent, surrender their birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, in exchange for civil and political liberties.

● But I am opposed to the widespread use of fraud and disinformation used to trick Americans into volunteering without full disclosure. All those endowed rights go right out the window, once you consent to be governed. (Mandatory civic duties are prima facie evidence that one is no longer sovereign, with endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property.)

● And if 83+ years of two party collectivist servitude under “emergency rules” isn’t enough to persuade them to change, I can’t imagine what will.

- - - -

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

- - -
In the republican form of government, the people are sovereigns (unless they consent otherwise) served by (not ruled by) servant government. Their rights and liberties existed before constitutional government (which is why the republican form is NOT a constitutional republic - nor can a constitutional government institute a republican form).
Which means that in America, the servant government was never a sovereign government, with powers to rule everyone. Only those who consented to the terms of the compact are held liable.

Ironically, there is only ONE NATION on Earth with a republican form, yet her people know it not.

GO READ LAW.
The more eyes on the law, the better.

[T Smith]

Posted by ozmirage (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
The problem is, as I see it, it is difficult to impossible to cite the law of the land, as either a defense or right, in a lawless land.

There may be a laws and rights on paper, but until the people en mass agree to enforce--or even acknowledge them, the law itself is meaningless.

I understand the objection, but disagree with it.
Before I read law, I, too, was bamboozled into meek obedience.
When you are ignorant of the law, you cannot use it to defend your rights.

Do not believe me - go to your county courthouse law library and READ law for yourself. If I told you what you will find in the law, you wouldn't believe me. Shucks, if I went back in time, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either. But if you do go to the county courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.

I understand what you're saying; I also know all about the laws you are talking about. My guess is most of the people on this forum are also well aware of these laws. That said, I'm sure there are some court cases/laws that might surprise me to learn about, but incredulousness certainly wouldn't be among the range of emotions I might have.

They Own It All, Including You, by Robert McDonald, outlines much of what you are talking about. I also know some people have successfully bucked our current state of lawlessness by appealing to the real world outside the matrix. But my feeling is those who have successfully resisted their meek obedience are the exception, not the rule. The issue, I guess, is finding 12 jurors who aren't so thoroughly brainwashed see my post here or an honest judge who would even allow certain arguments to be heard, etc. More times than not the "law" you're talking about is thrown out as "frivolous" (their words, not mine) before it is even heard.

All said, I would be very pleased for the cynic in me to be proved entirely wrong. And when push comes to shove, I'm very much on board to set out to prove myself wrong.

[onawah]

After Saturday, “I Like Bernie but He Can’t Win” No Longer Applies.
Posted by Calvin Wolf
The Bern Report
http://thebernreport.com/after-satur...onger-applies/

I was intrigued by Simon Parkes' prediction that this POTUS election could be won in an upset by a candidate not favored by the controllers. He didn't name names, and probably a lot of people would infer from that that he meant Trump would win. I don't think Trump can win, but I think Sanders can, and though he's certainly not going to be able to change much on his own, he is getting a lot of enthusiastic support that could result in strong enough grass roots activity (which does have an effect), once elected, that could result in some real change. A lot will depend, of course, on how closely the Diebold machines are being monitored, how many voters are turned away from the polls, etc. etc, but those things are being monitored and reported on to some extent, at least. So I still think there's a chance Hillary won't win, and every little bit can help at this point. We know plenty about all the negative stuff that is going on behind the scenes, but not much about the positive because the mainstream press doesn't report that. In short, I don't think all is lost yet....

After former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s controversial win in the Arizona Democratic primary, it was declared that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have to win an average of 58 percent of the remaining delegates in each subsequent primary or caucus to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The mainstream media, which has long been in the pocket of Hillary Clinton, quickly began including Clinton’s unpledged superdelegates in the equation, promoting the fiction that Bernie Sanders would actually have to win 70 percent of the remaining delegates to claim the nomination. The message to voters from our supposedly-neutral journalists? “Forget about voting for Bernie Sanders – he’ll never get 70 percent in any state!”

Well, Bernie Sanders just went and got himself 70 percent. Thrice. Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. Of these three, Washington is a populous, delegate-heavy state. The states are also racially diverse, undercutting the media’s persistent claim that Sanders only does well in overwhelmingly white electorates. Finally, the three states were the only states voting on Saturday, meaning Sanders won a clean sweep.

And, perhaps most importantly, Bernie Sanders’ clean sweep comes right before a brief – but invaluable – intermission in the Democratic primaries: The next contest will occur on April 5 in Wisconsin. Sanders just won some great coverage and terrific momentum heading into a nine-day stretch where his fundraising and social media machines can work their political magic. These nine days also provide Hillary Clinton more chances to stumble or commit verbal gaffes, from which she has increasingly suffered this spring. Basically, the nine-day rest will benefit Sanders, who has positive momentum, but hurt Clinton, who has negative momentum.

Sanders’ 70 percent victories are also crucial in that they shatter the media’s artificially-created aura of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. Even with the media’s fudged numbers, including Clinton’s fair-weather superdelegates, Sanders is still on a winning path by claiming over 70 percent of the vote in the most recent primary contests. This news alone will convince many Clinton supporters to defect, now believing that their secret affinity for Bernie Sanders can actually pay off.

How many tepid Clinton supporters are only in her camp because they believe Sanders cannot win? “I like him, but he can’t win” has become a 2016 cliche among both political parties, with large numbers of voters preferring honest, bold, and innovative candidates…but ultimately casting their ballots for duller but more “realistic” candidates. This explains why voters overwhelmingly dislike Hillary Clinton, but dutifully vote for her anyway.

Well, no longer! Sanders’ resounding blowouts in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington prove that he can win…and is actually on track to win. This will convince masses of “I like him, but he can’t win” voters in delegate-heavy states like New York, Pennsylvania, and California to Feel the Bern. It will also convince many of Clinton’s self-interested superdelegates to begin defecting as well. When a vast majority of your state’s Democrats and left-leaning independents are voting enthusiastically for Bernie Sanders, ignoring democracy and voting instead for Hillary Clinton is a quick way to be out of a job.

Clintonite superdelegates might be able to brush off a 52-48 victory by Sanders, but not a 71-29 victory. Look for many superdelegates to begin distancing themselves from the Clinton political machine, instantly reducing the media’s pro-Clinton math by several percentage points. Self-interest no longer favors remaining loyal to Hillary Clinton.

More here:MAJOR WINS FOR BERNIE SANDERS IN 3 STATES WITH PROVEN TRACK RECORDS OF PICKING WINNERS
http://www.politicalpeopleblog.com/b...in-washington/

[T Smith]

Posted by onawah (here)
After Saturday, “I Like Bernie but He Can’t Win” No Longer Applies.
Posted by Calvin Wolf
The Bern Report
http://thebernreport.com/after-satur...onger-applies/

I was intrigued by Simon Parkes' prediction that this POTUS election could be won in an upset by a candidate not favored by the controllers. He didn't name names, and probably a lot of people would infer from that that he meant Trump would win. I don't think Trump can win, but I think Sanders can, and though he's certainly not going to be able to change much on his own, he is getting a lot of enthusiastic support that could result in strong enough grass roots activity (which does have an effect), once elected, that could result in some real change. A lot will depend, of course, on how closely the Diebold machines are being monitored, how many voters are turned away from the polls, etc. etc, but those things are being monitored and reported on to some extent, at least. So I still think there's a chance Hillary won't win, and every little bit can help at this point. We know plenty about all the negative stuff that is going on behind the scenes, but not much about the positive because the mainstream press doesn't report that. In short, I don't think all is lost yet....

After former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s controversial win in the Arizona Democratic primary, it was declared that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have to win an average of 58 percent of the remaining delegates in each subsequent primary or caucus to win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. The mainstream media, which has long been in the pocket of Hillary Clinton, quickly began including Clinton’s unpledged superdelegates in the equation, promoting the fiction that Bernie Sanders would actually have to win 70 percent of the remaining delegates to claim the nomination. The message to voters from our supposedly-neutral journalists? “Forget about voting for Bernie Sanders – he’ll never get 70 percent in any state!”

Well, Bernie Sanders just went and got himself 70 percent. Thrice. Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. Of these three, Washington is a populous, delegate-heavy state. The states are also racially diverse, undercutting the media’s persistent claim that Sanders only does well in overwhelmingly white electorates. Finally, the three states were the only states voting on Saturday, meaning Sanders won a clean sweep.

And, perhaps most importantly, Bernie Sanders’ clean sweep comes right before a brief – but invaluable – intermission in the Democratic primaries: The next contest will occur on April 5 in Wisconsin. Sanders just won some great coverage and terrific momentum heading into a nine-day stretch where his fundraising and social media machines can work their political magic. These nine days also provide Hillary Clinton more chances to stumble or commit verbal gaffes, from which she has increasingly suffered this spring. Basically, the nine-day rest will benefit Sanders, who has positive momentum, but hurt Clinton, who has negative momentum.

Sanders’ 70 percent victories are also crucial in that they shatter the media’s artificially-created aura of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. Even with the media’s fudged numbers, including Clinton’s fair-weather superdelegates, Sanders is still on a winning path by claiming over 70 percent of the vote in the most recent primary contests. This news alone will convince many Clinton supporters to defect, now believing that their secret affinity for Bernie Sanders can actually pay off.

How many tepid Clinton supporters are only in her camp because they believe Sanders cannot win? “I like him, but he can’t win” has become a 2016 cliche among both political parties, with large numbers of voters preferring honest, bold, and innovative candidates…but ultimately casting their ballots for duller but more “realistic” candidates. This explains why voters overwhelmingly dislike Hillary Clinton, but dutifully vote for her anyway.

Well, no longer! Sanders’ resounding blowouts in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington prove that he can win…and is actually on track to win. This will convince masses of “I like him, but he can’t win” voters in delegate-heavy states like New York, Pennsylvania, and California to Feel the Bern. It will also convince many of Clinton’s self-interested superdelegates to begin defecting as well. When a vast majority of your state’s Democrats and left-leaning independents are voting enthusiastically for Bernie Sanders, ignoring democracy and voting instead for Hillary Clinton is a quick way to be out of a job.

Clintonite superdelegates might be able to brush off a 52-48 victory by Sanders, but not a 71-29 victory. Look for many superdelegates to begin distancing themselves from the Clinton political machine, instantly reducing the media’s pro-Clinton math by several percentage points. Self-interest no longer favors remaining loyal to Hillary Clinton.

More here:MAJOR WINS FOR BERNIE SANDERS IN 3 STATES WITH PROVEN TRACK RECORDS OF PICKING WINNERS
http://www.politicalpeopleblog.com/b...in-washington/

For Bernie Sanders to have any shot at all, he has to start contesting and screaming loudly about the delegate process that is awarding Hillary Clinton the necessary delegates to secure the nomination, regardless of the popular vote. I don't see him doing this. Why the silence? And I'm not talking about a blog or two complaining about the injustice of it all, or an article here or there in the alternative media. I'm talking about actively fighting the delegate process via a massive public relations campaign, both legally and by adopting an agressive strategy to retain his delegates, even if that means forming alliances and battle stations to change the rules. In order to truly be a "revolutionary", you have to shake things up and take on the DNC itself, and not just the cronyism and corruption of our rotten system at large. Tackling the ladder may rouse the people, but taking on the former would be the first step to truly rouse reform. In other words, in order to truly have a shot, Bernie Sanders would have to go places that are not pleasant. I don't see him doing this.

This same phenomenon happened in 2008 and to a larger degree in 2012 with Ron Paul, who would have won the Republican nomination easily (and who would have likely defeated Barack Obama in a general election) had he had the tenacity and fight to expose what went on in Iowa and elsewhere during those first few primaries and caucuses that always have such a profound influence on the nomination itself. But, as a Statesman and pure ideologue, Ron Paul took the high road, as if tacitly capitulating to the system. He instead resigned himself to the role of educating his enthusiastic followers and awakening as many people as possible while enjoying the spotlight his campaign afforded. I see Bernie Sanders doing the very same thing. The difference is, at least the media pretends Bernie Sanders has shot--albeit an outside shot--a protest alternative of sorts to the criminal Hillary (which provides the people the illusion of choice) whereas with Paul there was a total media blackout.

What happens in any case is once a few of the primaries and caucuses pass without contesting the results, some of which are blatantly fraudulent, the people essentially misjudge the general appeal of the populist candidate and issue a collective shrug, as if to say, "Oh well. He can't win anyway. He's too radical. Why waste my vote?"

Donald Trump does not play by these rules. As the RNC is again angling to do everything in its power (popular vote be damed) to nominate "Anyone But Trump", you better believe the Trump campaign, unlike Sanders and Paul before him, will spare no expense or strategy to aggressively fight and counter these tricks. He will exit, if he exists at all, kicking and screaming, and with considerable weight and support behind him. What about Sanders? I fully expect a gracious and courteous concession speech by Bernie Sanders. He will eventually back and support the criminality of his party and will essentially congratulate Hillary for stealing the nomination. At the end of the day he will urge his followers to support Hillary in the general election.

I've been reading your posts on Sanders as well as others who espouse similar analyses, but nobody ever addresses the elephant in the room. What about the delegates ?????

[onawah]

David Icke and Richard Hoagland discussing Trump, Sanders and more here:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zPf71jvX-p0

From: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1056098

[Octavusprime]

Let's not forget Bernie's biggest endorsement to date... Mother nature. The world works in mysterious ways, who would of thought a single bird would cause such a stir.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2TVLoxsDA

Trump loves birds too though:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=M41aZX5ijVM

[onawah]

I was going to post the following article as well, but didn't since it's from November, though perhaps it's still relevant.
I am no expert on how US elections work--and I agree on your points about Sanders playing by the rules, but the fact that he is getting the young vote (passionately) makes me think that he might continue to smarten up as the process unfolds and perhaps even take on the delegate issue...
If the human race has any hope, aside from some kind of benevolent ET intervention (if there is such a thing), I think it's in our youth.

Posted by T Smith (here)

I've been reading your posts on Sanders as well as others who espouse similar analyses, but nobody ever addresses the elephant in the room. What about the delegates ?????

http://thebernreport.com/why-bernie-...lem-after-all/

Why Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Have a Superdelegate Problem After All
Posted by G.A. Casebeer November 1, 2015

First of all, what exactly is a superdelegate, besides some big scary word that corporate media likes to use?

From wikipedia: A “superdelegate” or an “unpledged delegate” is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically, based on their status as current (Republican and Democratic) or former (Democratic only) party leader or elected official.

Although “superdelegate” was originally coined and created to describe this type of Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties, even though it is not an official term used by either party.

For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:

delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as “unpledged party leader and elected official delegates” (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as “unpledged add-on delegates” and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.
In some presidential elections, superdelegates can play a major role in determining the Democratic nominee, especially in a close race. Unlike delegates though, superdelegates are not bound to represent the popular vote of a region at the Democratic National Convention; they are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

Superdelegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, superdelegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegate is a term that arose in the 1970s. Clinton’s camp declared in late August that they had 1/5th of the delegates needed to win and had secured the support of 440 of the roughly 700 superdelegates, although some have questioned that statement.

“This is really about how you put the numbers together.”

Hillary Clinton

In order for a candidate to win the party nomination for president, he or she must gain the majority of delegate votes. We’ll cover the delegates in another article. The purpose of superdelegates is for high-ranking Democrats to maintain some control over the nominating process and each state has it’s own unique amount of delegates and superdelegates.

Based on the table below listing delegates and superdelegates and using Iowa as an example, and also assuming that Hillary Clinton has 75% of the superdelegates secured, if Bernie Sanders grabs 56 percent of the vote and Clinton grabs 44 percent of the vote, Bernie would get 25 delegates and Clinton 21. Add the superdelegates, 6 for Clinton and 2 for Bernie and it is a tie.

Of course as you’ll see on this list, some states such as New Hampshire and Massachusetts have 25% or higher superdelegate counts, so the formula varies a little bit and then you have Vermont, Sanders’ home state which has 15 delegates and 8 superdelegates but we are gonna call Vermont in favor of Sanders. (Bold move I know)

Let’s look at a state like Illinois which has 160 delegates and 30 super delegates while also assuming that Hillary Clinton has 75% of the superdelegates on her side, if Bernie Sanders grabs 54.5 percent of the vote and Clinton grabs 45.5 percent of the vote, Bernie would get 87 delegates and Clinton 73. Add the superdelegates, 22 for Clinton and 8 for Bernie and it is a tie.

Those figures also assume of course that no one is in the race, so to be on the safe side let’s give O’Malley 8% of the vote in Illinois. To do that we’ll shave 4% off of both Clinton and Sanders’ totals. In that scenario Sanders would need 50.5 percent of the vote to gain 81 delegates and 8 superdelegates, for a total of 89. Clinton would have 41.5 percent of the vote amounting to 66 delegates and 22 superdelegates for a total of 88 and O’Malley, assuming he’s got no super delegate support would have around 12. Keep in mind all figures have been rounded up.

Date[49][50] State/territory Calculated delegates[51] Type[a]
Pledged Superdelegates
February 1, 2016 Iowa 46 8 Semi-open caucus
February 9, 2016 New Hampshire 24 8 Semi-closed primary
February 20, 2016 Nevada 31 8 Closed caucus
February 27, 2016 South Carolina 51 6 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Alabama 52 6 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Arkansas 32 5 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Colorado 64 13 Closed caucus
March 1–8, 2016 Democrats abroad 13 4 Closed primary
March 1, 2016 Georgia 98 14 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Massachusetts 95 26 Semi-closed primary
March 1, 2016 Minnesota 78 16 Open caucus
March 1, 2016 Oklahoma 38 4 Semi-closed primary
March 1, 2016 Tennessee 68 9 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Texas 208 29 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Vermont 15 8 Open primary
March 1, 2016 Virginia 95 17 Open primary
March 5, 2016 Louisiana 54 7 Closed primary
March 5, 2016 Nebraska 26 5 Closed caucus
March 5, 2016 Kansas 33 4 Closed caucus
March 6, 2016 Maine 25 5 Closed caucus
March 8, 2016 Mississippi 36 5 Open primary
March 8, 2016 Michigan 133 19 Open primary
March 15, 2016 Florida 207 31 Closed primary
March 15, 2016 Illinois 160 30 Semi-closed primary
March 15, 2016 Missouri 75 13 Open primary
March 15, 2016 North Carolina 107 13 Semi-closed primary
March 15, 2016 Ohio 148 17 Semi-open primary
March 22, 2016 Arizona 63 12 Closed primary
March 22, 2016 Idaho 20 4 Semi-closed caucus
March 22, 2016 Utah 24 4 Semi-open caucus
March 26, 2016 Alaska 14 4 Closed caucus
March 26, 2016 Hawaii 22 9 Semi-closed caucus
March 26, 2016 Washington 86 16 Open caucus
April 5, 2016 Wisconsin 79 10 Open primary
April 9, 2016 Wyoming 13 4 Closed caucus
April 19, 2016 New York 233 44 Closed primary
April 26, 2016 Maryland 78 27 Closed primary
April 26, 2016 Connecticut 51 14 Closed primary
April 26, 2016 Delaware 17 10 Closed primary
April 26, 2016 Pennsylvania 160 21 Closed primary
April 26, 2016 Rhode Island 22 9 Semi-closed primary
May 3, 2016 Indiana 70 9 Open primary
May 7, 2016 Guam 6 5 Closed caucus
May 10, 2016 West Virginia 26 9 Semi-closed primary
May 17, 2016 Kentucky 47 6 Closed primary
May 17, 2016 Oregon 52 12 Closed primary
June 5, 2016 Puerto Rico 51 7 Open primary
June 7, 2016 California 405 71 Semi-closed primary
June 7, 2016 Montana 15 7 Open primary
June 7, 2016 New Jersey 110 16 Closed primary
June 7, 2016 New Mexico 29 9 Closed primary
June 7, 2016 South Dakota 15 5 Semi-open primary
June 14, 2016 District of Columbia 17 20 Closed primary
TBA North Dakota 14 5 Open primary
TBA American Samoa 6 4 Open caucus
TBA Northern Marianas 6 5 N/A
TBA Virgin Islands 6 5 Closed caucus
So all things considered, even if Clinton has the big edge in terms of superdelegates that have committed, Bernie still has the edge for winning the nomination. It’s no secret (except to some Clinton supporters) that Sanders has a massive following with the millennial crowd and with the politically disenchanted. Plus let’s not forget that Clinton had the edge over Obama with superdelegates but many of them switched teams and I’d look for some of the same thing to happen in 2016. Make no mistake, he’ll get his share of superdelegates and if the young people vote, Bernie wins easily.

[onawah]

Never mind the eagle, did you notice how Trump's bangs ALL moved when the other guy smoothed down his cowlick? I wonder how much speculation that is causing about whether it's actually a hairpiece?

Posted by Octavusprime (here)
Trump loves birds too though:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=M41aZX5ijVM

[ozmirage]

Posted by T Smith (here)
But my feeling is those who have successfully resisted their meek obedience are the exception, not the rule. The issue, I guess, is finding 12 jurors who aren't so thoroughly brainwashed . . . More times than not the "law" you're talking about is thrown out as "frivolous" (their words, not mine) before it is even heard.
All said, I would be very pleased for the cynic in me to be proved entirely wrong. And when push comes to shove, I'm very much on board to set out to prove myself wrong.

In any controversy where there is no injured party (victim), invariably, the accused / defendant has given consent, in one form or another. Thus, it appears that certain defenses are thrown out as "frivolous". He who consents cannot object.

That we don't know how or when we gave consent IS a major problem.

In my experience, I have yet to find an instance where the servant government did not have sufficient evidence that the accused / defendant "shot himself in the foot" by his own admissions.

And the "patriot wins" (or cases that never went to trial) are not easily found for reference.

I have not read all law, but I have yet to find a law that trespasses upon the natural and personal liberty of the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.

However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.

In short, if one has not given consent, all that servant government can do is secure rights, as in prosecute those who deliberately injure the person and property of another. But once consent is given, all bets are off.

[norman]

Are we about to witness the Republican voters/nominees trash their own political identity and vote for a Clinton, just because she's closer to the ruling establishment than Trump?

[Calz]

We can always dream ....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8

__________________


Report: Feds Moving Forward With Plan To Interview Hillary In Email Investigation

147 FBI agents have been involved in the probe

Chuck Ross | Daily Caller - March 28, 2016


Two reports out Sunday provide new details about the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton, including that 147 FBI agents have been involved in the probe and that federal prosecutors are expected to soon seek an interview with the presidential candidate.

According to The Los Angeles Times, prosecutors have contacted the attorneys for the top Clinton State Department aides who sent and received classified information that landed on the former secretary of state’s private email server.

The FBI seized that device in August, after the intelligence community’s inspector general determined that some of the emails sent to Clinton contained “Top Secret” information.

According to The Times, dates have not yet been set for the interviews with Clinton’s aides, but they are forthcoming, indicating that the Justice Department will soon wrap up its investigation.

Clinton has denied that she is the target of the investigation. During a presidential debate held earlier this month Clinton grew visibly agitated when asked if she would quit her White House bid if indicted.


http://www.infowars.com/report-feds-...investigation/

[mgray]

This grave stone was found in Manhattan's Central Park on Easter Sunday.

[Calz]

I saw that too ... headstones are not cheap ...

(chump change for kazillionaires no doubt)