Who Rules the United States?

From your new link:

"David Rockefeller's newest international cabal [the Trilateral Commission] ... is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States …

The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power — political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community.".....

Yup. Trump's really up against it.

So are we all.

 

This reflects a lack of understanding and knowledge.

The courts will always be the weakest of the three divisions of power in our government. The court was granted the sole power of rendering decisions to resolve disputes that arise under the law and the Constitution but it has no power to enforce those decisions.

The enforcement of the decisions by the court resides with the executive branch (that controls the military and law enforcement) and the legislative branch (that controls the law and the funding for the enforcement).

The decisions of the court are only relevant when the legislative branch and the executive branch enforce those decisions.

 

What you are saying is that a rogue government administration does not have to follow the law, basically what we saw the last 8 years.

 

It is ironic that the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any authority to Congress to restrict immigration because the primary architect of the US Constitution was James Madison that (like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton) opposed restrictions on immigration because it is a fundamental violation of the unalienable/inalienable Right of Liberty,

In spite of the fact that the Constitution does not enumerate the power to control immigration by the Congress the Supreme Court has upheld the immigration laws even though we know that historically they were used to limit or prohibit immigration based upon race, religion, and ethnic heritage to protect WASP (Male) Supremacy in the United States. This is clearly evident by the very first immigration restriction, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, that even the title itself identifies it as a racist law. All subsequent immigration laws have also been designed based upon protecting WASP (Male) Supremacy because none of those laws have ever restricted White Anglo Saxon Protestants from immigrating to the United States.

Even though we know our immigration laws have always been based upon racism, and that there's no enumeration to support them, the Constitution still imposes prohibitions against immigration restrictions that explicitly violate provisions in the US Constitution. As noted religion cannot be used as a criteria for restricting or prohibiting immigration because it's a violation of the First Amendment's "freedom of religion" clause. Nationality, ethnic heritage, or gender cannot be used as a basis for immigration restrictions because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause.

The grounds for immigration restrictions are always subject to the provisions of the US Constitution and cannot violate prohibitions contained in the US Constitution.

The President's authority to limit or ban immigration is extremely limited by law because it can only be based upon factual evidence (a finding) that a threat exists that is detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President has no authority to impose an immigration ban or restriction based upon unsupported opinion (e.g Muslims are terrorists and Mexicans are rapists/murderers).

 

Your side does take the stance I underlined but it is incorrect. The Constitutional protections apply to citizens only--and with good reason. We have a right to protect our culture.

 

The previous administration complied with the Constitution, the laws, and all orders of the Court in in the few cases where the administration inadvertently acted in violation of the Constitution and/or laws of the United States, It could not be considered a "rogue government" because it did not violate any court orders that I'm aware of.

In fact the Supreme Court rarely found the administration out of compliance with the law and never, to my knowledge, in violation of the Constitution. The most notable case I'm aware of is the Supreme Court's National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning decision on "recess appointments" where the Obama Administration challenged the Senate “pro forma” Rule that allows it to claim it's "in session" when it's not actually conducting any government business and doesn't even have a quorum present to conduct any business. The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate could basically make any rules it wants under the Constitution and if the Senate wants claim it's in session when it's really not that's within the power of the Senate.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was never challenged.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) was challenged by the State of Texas where a federal court granted "standing" to Texas and rendered a decision that the executive order violated the Administrative Procedures Act (but not the immigration laws) and this decision was upheld by the Appeals Court. The case did go to the Supreme Court that reviewed three things. 1) Did Texas have standing? 2. Did the executive order violate the Administrative Procedures Act? 3) Did the President act within the authority granted by Article II of the Constitution? The Supreme Court spilt 4-4 so no decision was issued based upon any of the three issues under review.

I'm hard pressed to find any other examples. The PPACA (Obamacare) ruling that removed the mandate for the states to adopt the expansion of Medicaid was about the law and not the actions of the Executive branch. I don't believe he was challenged on not imposing the PPACA penalties for the Employer Mandate because there were no forms for employers to document compliance.

Perhaps you know something I don't. I can't think of any where it was a Constitutional violation.

 

That's funny and devoid of reality. Obama lost in court quite often.

 

The Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment acknowledges that citizens (a subgroup of the people of the United States) have certain "privileges or immunities" but the Constitution does not establish any Rights that are limited to US citizens. Rights are established either by enumeration or by prohibitions imposed on our government and these rights exist for everyone that's subjected to the authority of the US government regardless of what their citizenship might be.

For example the Eight Amendment establishes a prohibition that applies to the Government in the United States where it states:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment8.html

The government in the United States is prohibited from ever imposing excessive bail or fines or of ever inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. Who the person happens to be, whether they're a US citizen or not, or even the "place" (e.g. in another country) where the US government or it's agents are exercising authority is irrelevant because the government is expressly prohibited from ever imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or imposing cruel and unusual punishment at any time, in any place, or against any person under the Eight Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment provides for the protection of the unenumerated rights of the people.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html

This isn't a protection of the unenumerated rights of the "citizens" because the word "citizens" is not used. The word "people" is used and that includes the two sub-groups of "citizens" and "non-citizens" that comprise all of the "people" under the US Constitution.

Of note foreign diplomats are not a part of the "people" of the United States because they are excluded by statutory law from being subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the law in the United States. Only individuals that are subject to the jurisdiction and/or authority of our government are included as a part of definition of the "people" as used in the US Constitution.

Might I suggest doing a little more studying of the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions related to it.

 

I've heard Republicans state that but when it comes to actually providing examples they never seem to be able to do that.

The criteria for presidential responsibility is that it must be an adjudicated case with a clear decision by the US Supreme Court that the act occurred at the direction of or with the knowledge of the president of the United States.

In fact we witnessed the prior president change his position when a constitutional issue was shown to exist prior to the case going before the Supreme court. President Obama, a Constitutional scholar, maintained that "civil unions" met the necessary criteria under the US Constitution for equal protection under the law. Then in 2009, the first year of Obama's presidency, the United States v. Windsor lawsuit over inheritance rights for legally married same-sex couple was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stating that the provisions in DOMA Section 3 that limited marriage to a man and a woman for federal purposes was unconstitutional. The DOJ had previously defended DOMA Section 3 based upon the rational basis standard established by precedent in other US District Court of Appeals jurisdictions but Windsor was filed in the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which had no such precedent, the DOJ had identified the proper standard of review in such cases as the more demanding "heightened scrutiny" and the evidence was compelling that DOMA Section 3 would not pass the criteria of "heightened scrutiny" for equal protection. Attorney General Eric Holder went to President Obama and explained the reason why DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional, the arguments were convincing, Obama changed is previous opinion on same-sex marriage, and the DOJ at the direction of President Obama with the concurrence of Attorney General Eric Holder, refused to defend a clearly unconstitutional federal law. This was confirmed by the US Supreme Court on June 26, 2013 when the Supreme Court found that DOMA Section 3, limiting federal recognition to opposite sex couples, violated the equal protection clause by denying equality to legally married same sex couples. .

President Obama was willing to change his position based solely upon the evidence that his position was contrary to the US Constitution.

That is not happening with President Trump and it's been demonstrated by the Muslim Travel Ban that was not based upon any evidence that "nationality" was a valid criteria for establishing even a temporary banning of visas by individuals from those seven countries. His acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, the top lawyer in the United States government, immediately identified the lack of evidence to support the travel ban and order the DOJ to not defend the ban in court. Instead of listening to the Top Lawyer for the government President Trump fired her.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/backlash-grows-against-trump-travel-002244824.html

He appointed a "willing" temporary Attorney General, pending approval of Jeff Sessions, that sent lawyers to represent the President to all of the federal courts where lawsuits had been filed and when called upon to provide "evidence" of a terrorist threat to justify the travel ban they had none to provide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.0e4abc721786

In desperation President Trump turned to the Department of Homeland Security and requested evidence that would support the travel ban. Much to the disappointment of the President the Department of Homeland Security found the exact opposite to be true. DHS, in a draft report, stated:

https://qz.com/919257/department-of...port-rejects-donald-trumps-travel-ban-claims/

So when is President Trump going to admit that just because someone is a Muslim that was born in a Muslim nation that it doesn't imply that they represent a "terrorist threat" to the United States regardless of what "some people" are telling him. Might as well tell him that just because "some people" are telling him that Mexicans are rapists and murderers doesn't make that true either.

BTW I believe that the "some people" that keep telling Donald Trump this BS is just a pseudonym for "Steve Bannon" that's historically documented advocate for the Alt-Right (White Supremacists, White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis) in the United States.

 

People not yet in the country have no rights under our Constitution and can be excluded for any reason we choose. Your post is extremely misleading.

 

I read and agree with your previous posts which look at identifying individual members of the establishment ( In include the international financiers/bankers - such as Rothschild family and some of the folks you mentioned in this definition of establishment).

I am also interested in how the system functions on a macro level. We all know the history of international financiers profiting from both sides of war (and if one does not go study up before commenting). They profit by supplying arms to one or both sides ( or from increased military budgets that fund defense contractors) and from lending one or both sides money to finance these wars.

This is why we have been fighting numerous useless wars - and what necessitates a constant stream of fear propaganda (whether it is "the Russians are coming" or "the terrorists are coming". Or false narratives that support ramping up the military - Like we did not figure out 40 years ago that there is no winner in a nuclear war with Russia - both countries would drop from the face of the map.

Russia has one operational air-craft carrier. We have 19. To do what ? These craft would be useless in a war against Russia or China or India for that matter (wars that will not happen or if they do these craft get wiped out in the blink of a mushroom cloud).

Who then is it that we are fighting such that we need 19. The reality is that missile technology has advanced to the point where these floating cities of metal are at risk even from non nuclear countries.

In order to maintain these necessary illusions the establishment has taken over the mainstream media.

The mainstream media is owned by large corporations. The large corp is controlled by the board of directors who are appointed from or by the major shareholders. The major shareholders are the establishment. The chief editor of almost every major news outlet is appointed by the establishment. This is true not just for the US but for other countries such as Britain. They have publicly traded corps too.

The establishment also own and control all the other major corporations in the same way - Food, Oil, Drugs, and various other oligopolies.

Every time some new tax law or regulation is made - the Oligopolies are at the table. The person supposed to be representing "we the people" is often in the pocket of or influence by the Oligopoly. The Oligopoly does not win every table but, over time, table after table, the Oligopoly win's enough to skew the rules of the game in it's direction.

The idea that there is fair and free competition is a "necessary illusion".

In order to get political power a politician will generally have to sell his soul to one or more of the Oligopolies - who financed his way into power. It does not matter if a few come along from time to time that do not sell out or, like Trump - who can finance themselves. A few lone voices can not accomplish much against a herd of stampeding bulls. This is a "long game" - if one fellow does not get proper regulations pushed through the next guy will or the one after that. Once regs or tax law is in place they are very difficult to change and by that time the competition has long since been trampled or left in the dust.

Another example is how insider trading is not illegal for congress. You (or even better if it's your buddy creating one degree of separation) can sit on a committee giving a contract to ABC company and invest in that company prior to the news hitting the street. This is a license to print money - "I want in on that Game". Sure there were some folks from time to time who spoke up against this activity.
Everyone than pointed and said "Look Look - we have freedom of speech - the system works".

That long voice was then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take - and I can no fault them too much - I would not be the one that shoots the goose laying the golden eggs either. As you can see this is not even something that the Cabal needs to control once set up. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

They can lose a few battles but, over time, self interest and greed is going to win enough battles to skew the rules of the game.

We now live in a country where the worker is being reduced to a role of indentured servitude. We can not raise wages because we need to take care of the shareholders. Really ? Do We ?

It used to be the owner was first and the worker second (in a private company). There used to be bonuses at the end of the year and you needed to treat your workers good because they would go to the competition. Now there are almost no year end bonuses because the shareholder has supplanted the worker who is now relegated to third place.

Massive anti competitive mergers "Dow/Dupont" for example (this completely anti competitive and should never be allowed) reduce competition (but more importantly wage competition). I experienced this first hand if one is interested. In many sectors there are only a couple of competitors. They both treat their employees the same (badly) but, there is no where else the worker can go because there are only two choices.

On the other side of the coin - in the 50s/60s the corp/worker tax split was 50/50. Now it is on the order of 20/80. All that extra income the company makes goes into the pockets of the shareholders who pay no tax if they do not live in the country and even if they do - dividend income is taxed at a very low rate.

I am happy we have roads, garbage collection, sewage, infrastructure, police and so on but, McDonalds can not exist without these things either. Why is it then that I am forced to pay McDonald's share of the tax bill ?

OHH but but but (get ready ... false narrative time) McDonalds creates Jobs which supports our economy.

This is complete nonsense. If McD (or some other large corp) was not there some other company would be selling food (perhaps even real food). The difference is that the owner be someone who lived in the community and so will spend the profits in the local economy. In the case of McD - profits go to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not live in the country - never mind spend money in the the local economy.

You can see that a little bit of cream is being skimmed off of the top of the milk. The problem is that when you multiply this thousands of times and in thousands of ways.. you end up with skim milk.

Not only does McD. Take profits out of the local economy - we pay their share of the tax burden.

 

False.

"citizen" is a subset of "person" and the constitution uses both terms accordingly.

The idea that the US would fail to recognize any rights of any person who is not a citizen is actually quite disturbing. Its constitution outlines the US governments disposition toward the world. Imagine if a human came onto the scene and announced that he doesn't recognize any rights of anyone in the world other than members of the new club he just created.

 

Your point is logically flawed. We're talking here about the "right" of a noncitizen to enter--ie, occupy--the US.

If you were correct, your side's bogeymen, the Russians, could ship over their excess population to New Jersey and offload.

 

The corporate elite. Everything else is meaningless happy talk.

 

If enough, like you, say so.

 

Ummmm..... how about we look at Article 1, Section 2.
"2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

It's pretty obvious here that the Constitution distinguishes between citizens of the US and non-citizens.

Let's look at Article 3, Section 2:
"1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

The clearly delineates the difference between citizens of a US State and those of foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.

The Supreme Court has extended the protections of due process to foreign nationals on US soil but that does *NOT* include making them citizens that can vote, be a Representative, a Senator, or even President. Foreign nationals are *not* extended the right under the Constitution to 2nd Amendment rights including concealed carry.

And *no* US Constitutional rights extend to foreign nationals on foreign soil. No foreign national on foreign soil can claim a right to enter the US based on our Constitution.

The Constitution does *not* use the terms "Citizen" and "person" as synonyms.

 

I know. Try reading that again, and maybe consult a dictionary this time.

 

My response was a response to what you said, which is this:

It's not true for the reason I mentioned.

Why don't you go ahead and show me where the US government gets power over immigration and travel from its constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

I think that mechanism they use to make law amounts to a bit more than happy talk.

 

I didn't refer to the Constitution. I referred to common sense. Countries have always had the right to control their borders. Only NWO schemers claim otherwise.

 

Oh, you don't care if your government obeys the law, okay, nevermind.

Just out of curiosity, do you care if individuals not acting in capacity of some public office obey the law?

 

I don't bother replying to false premises.

Survival is a basic human right. We all saw what happened to the American Indian, and we all see how ungrateful basic human nature is. Being nice to an imported group of people does not keep them from later overcoming you and taking away your land. Land is needed to survive. All but the most coddled and kept know this.

 

I'm sure.

 

Some people says it's the CFR controlling the US which makes sense to me because they are the US version of the round table. The IMF has control of all the property and people. When America went bankrupt in 1933 the property was given to the bank (farm act). Since the bankruptcy we gained a birth certificate that the original is given to the treasury department. They in turn can borrow money from the IMF's central bank the federal reserve on the stipulation that we will pay it back via the income tax effectively making us debt slaves.

The IMF or Lloyd's of London got its Charter from the Queen of England making me believe that the CFR rules the US for the Queen of England. There is strong evidence that the British Empire played a big part in the Civil War and every step after. The British never left after the revolution. They stayed in New York and it's probably the real reason NY is called the Empire state but no one really knows how it got the name. There is a British office for every state in the Union. Other evidence pointing to England as the secret ruler of the US is after the civil war the act of 1871 was passed setting up an unconstitutional government in Washington DC. DC seal has a red coat on a pedestal over the lady liberty who looks like she is defeated. Also the British holiday Christmas was not a popular holiday and wasn't celebrated until after the civil war around 1871. The last piece of evidence I can think of at this moment is Burke’s Peerage a genealogy group in England has successfully predicated the US president over 200 years. Just by picking the candidates with the most Nobel bloodlines. CBS broke that story in 2004 after W was re elected. The following election after the story broke they choose wrong for the first time ever. I personally believe it was to deflect people from questioning how could they be right every time.

 

Sorry that's b.s. we don't rule over squat. We are as the 14th amendment says subject to the jurisdiction there of. Making us subjects. The constitution was conquered when the south lost the civil war. Conquered again in 1933 by the banks. Wake up the place where you are from doesn't exist anymore. Voting doesn't give you any power over the government. The ELECTORS do all the voting that really matters. They don't have to vote the way the majority voted if they don't want to. They are not bound by any law to do so. They are the safety switch for the establishment if any real threat comes along.

 

Names of people that have served in many different presidents cabinet. Paul Wolfawitz, Henry Kissenger, Richard Perle. All are members of the CFR.