Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Here's Your Future Within the next 2 years *were being set up*

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 5:52 p.m. EST by thefly (36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You want to know what this is called? Starving us out plain and simple I Keep Telling people over and over again The corporations who are feeding the Govt Don't See us as Economically Viable to their Agenda You want to know what will happen? Eventually there will be a run on the banks and they will freeze all accts and personal assets Then the govt will own your ass totally!! You think you've been sold out now But wait till you have not one dime left Then you'll be Owned What will happen next? They will start herding us like in the movie Soylent Green Those whom are over 55 years of age will be Exterminated Those under 55 years of age will be put into FEMA slave labor facility work camps Those who resist will be killed You think I'm hallucinating? No I'm not We have already lost the Constitution Next will be the Declaration Of Independence cause were not Independant anymore We are and will be dependent on the govt to feed clothe and shelter us The FEMA Camps will be your Next address This is the scenario which is being planned for you and me Once they have eliminated all opposing threats then the New World Order will take place One thing is For Certain None of us will see the good ole days again of Individual Prosperity

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

We lost the Declaration of Independence when the constitution was drafted. The declaration states that governments are instated amongst men to protect their rights. Look through the Constitution and tell me if you think that THAT is its intended purpose.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Through Article 5 the rights of the constitution which men are granted by it, are enforced over the government operating under it. But those men should seriously avoid confusion.-----

See the 14th, the 5th amendments to the Bill of Rights, realize that Article 5 is an extension of "alter and abolish" in the Declaration of Independence.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

My point was that the constitution does not inherently include the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, specifically the right to life and the idea that government exists to protect individual rights.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

I think you mean as in "exact language" because the 14th amendment has the exact word "life".-

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

  1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..-----

The rest of the bill of rights protect and grant far more rights specifically than the Declaration of Independence while "alter and abolish" is adequately represented in Article 5.

Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

All that is needed is to unify in our states.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

That does not establish the right to life, only the limitation that there must be a law which allows a state to deprive a person of it with no limitation (except the bill of rights, which does not establish a right to life) on the laws that the state may enact. That clause also applies only to state law, not federal.

And none of that establishes the principle that government exists to protect individual rights. I am not as concerned with the 'alter and abolish' clause. If the people of this country decide that they need a new form of government, I do not expect the current form to willingly give up their system of power, whether or not there is a clause in the constitution regarding it. The ability to amend the constitution is a very powerful and intelligent aspect of our constitution. It is a step to prevent the necessity of 'abolition'. But it will only function if the people of this country understand the implementations of constitutional principles and interact with their representatives.

Regarding the bill of rights, the supreme court, in the constitution, is given the final say in all judicial matters. They have used this power to declare limitations on the applicability of certain rights enumerated in the bill of rights, often the freedom of speech and of the press. They have done this in order to resolve contradictions in the constitution, often between the commerce clause and freedom of speech.

They have expanded the powers and applicability of the commerce clause and limited the applicability of freedom of speech and of the press. If, anywhere in the constitution, the idea that government exists to protect individual rights existed, they would not be able to do this. The supreme court often relies on the idea that laws may limit individual rights where "significant state interests" are concerned. If the idea that government exists to protect individual rights were embodied in the constitution, that would be a contradiction.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Fortunate for us Article 5 grants power only to the states if 3/4 ratify. There was a 1939 attempt to apply a defacto amendment to the constitution, doing as you suggest, which as far as I'm concerned exposes a pattern and practice of unconstitutionality by the supremes meaning they can have no role because the "intent" of the constitution is mentioned and the people can have the final call on that through ratification.-----

The states created the constitution for the United States, they can enforce it and amend, but the people are too mislead and deprived of facts to know how bad it is or what to do.

Hmmm, I see your point about not directly granting a "right to life", but perhaps only God can do that, for now and the sake of simple function, to protect from deprival will probably do. There might be an aspect of sustainability that would justify that because of the balance of ecosystems that need to be maintained.-----

I presented the idea of Article 5 based on the long term need for naturally balanced ecosystems controlling US laws, perhaps GATT, to environmentalists seeking to protect sea mammals, but for some reason they couldn't connect societal consumer behaviors as having an effect.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Something I meant to say in my previous post. People HAVE a right to life (and because of the specific nature of that life, the derivative rights of freedom of speech/press, private property, etc). It is not within the power of the government to decide whether or not to grant it, only whether or not they will recognize it. Our does not.

The 'protection from deprival of life ' aspect seems to concern only the physical functioning of one's body. The mind is ignored, as are the requirements of maintaining it (as proven by our prison system).

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

I agree that all living things have a right to life. Then nature has animals eating animals, we eat them too. The concept is premature for humanity as we are.

whisper wrote: The mind is ignored, as are the requirements of maintaining it (as proven by our prison system).END-------

Excellent point and psychology is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo incredibly negligent. I can't say Hoooooooow much. It completely neglects the unconscious, 86% of mental existence.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Much of the 'unconscious' is concerned with the translation of sensations to perceptions as well as the evaluations of reality to emotional reaction. The problem with the schools of psychology that the government (and many individuals) tend(s) to rely upon for expert opinions (the behaviorists and the offshoots of behaviorism) is that they ignore the fact that emotions (and behavior) are physiological responses to the evaluations of a CONSCIOUS mind. Something has to be evaluated according to some criteria in order for an emotion or a behavior to occur. The behaviorists believe that by studying popular trends in human behavior they can distill these trends into general theories of human NATURE. What they ignore is the fact that one's own ideas are the context from which emotions arise and not the other way around; and that the fact that each individual must form his own ideas IS human nature.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Hmmm, not sure I can sort that out because the unconscious is 86% of our mental capacity and the sensory info is first available to it where it then passes a copy along conforming, very important, -conforming- to the sensory patterns of the conscious to help in organizing the dynamic presentation of consciousness.

Meanings/reaction/limbic response however might be adjusted by the unconscious before that copy is passed on, so it gets a feeling attached to it by the limbic system and unconscious long term memory. We call it an "attitude". Attitudes control what are held as conscious perceptions far too often.

I've tested psychology HARD, back in 2000. FAIL! Been testing, FAIL! They canno deal with the unconscious mind objectively.

http://truthasaur.tripod.com/2emo13.html

They are many times removed from functional performance.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

A sensation, as such, is not perceivable by a human consciousness. A sensation exists as a physical reaction (in the eye, a change affected by light hitting rods and cones, in the ear a change affected by the vibrations of the medium surrounding the head, etc). It must be transformed into a perception before the conscious mind can deal with it. From there it is organized into a concept, which is a method of regarding a set of perceptions as a unit of a certain type, differentiated from all other units within the context of a given individual's knowledge.

Emotions are a lightning-quick summation of the relationship between a concept and the individual considering it. The only periods of life in which the situation is different are the dream-state, in which emotions may be perceived seemingly in relation to nothing at all, and the pre-conceptual level of psychological development, in which they are the result of the pre-conceptual equivalents of concepts.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

We are in agreement. Your definition is more complete. That forming of perception part is where an action is taking place that I haven't seen well defined. The Maslowian hierachy of values seem compared instantly by the unconscious and phylogenetic DNA determining reactions, and a choice is made via the limbic system that has a viscereal manifestation as a feeling.-------

This is ceratinly an area the psychology needs to examine in order to improve our ability to interact more directly with that 86% and gain its cooperation. Sustainability will demand it.

[-] -1 points by EsotericAgenda (34) 2 years ago

popular mechanics is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'rilley

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

OR we could follow the state of North Dakota and thrive.

North Dakota has one thing that no other state has: its own state-owned bank. Access to credit is the enabling factor that has fostered both a boom in oil and record profits from agriculture..

North Dakota has had the lowest unemployment in the country (or was tied for the lowest unemployment rate in the country) every single month since July 2008.

Its healthy job market is also reflected in its payroll growth numbers. . . . Year over year, its payrolls grew by 5.2 percent. Texas came in second, with an increase of 2.6 percent.

Why is North Dakota doing so well? For one of the same reasons that Texas has been doing well: oil.

Oil is certainly a factor, but it is not what has put North Dakota over the top. Alaska has roughly the same population as North Dakota and produces nearly twice as much oil, yet unemployment in Alaska is running at 7.7 percent. Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have all benefited from a boom in energy prices, with Montana and Wyoming extracting much more gas than North Dakota has.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/north_dakota.php

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

easy credit is what caused and ended the housing bubble...

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, irresponsible lending practices, bundling of bad mortgages into mortgage backed securities, sales of those toxic mortgage backed securities as AAA bonds, and insurace policies against the failure of those toxic securities . . . caused and ended the housing bubble.

The private issuance of our currency and credit is at the very root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

No, those are just the policies that allowed people to profit off of the mistakes of those who were buying houses they could not afford on credit they could never earn.

And I disagree. The backing of our currency by government taxation is the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Not so . . . the total loss incurred by fraudulent criminality was greater in value than ALL of the mortgages in the U.S. - not just the bad ones. In fact, the federal bailout alone could have paid off 90% of ALL the mortgages in the U.S. and that doesn't come close to the total value of toxic assets.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Who's loss are you referring to? And what did they lose?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

I am referring to the total loss to all parties, which has not been completely determined even to this day. The reason for the bailout was to prop up the banks balance sheet so they could lend money, Since all of our money is issued as a bank loan, except for coins, which make up less than one one thousandth of our money supply. All of our money at this time is debt based and without debt there is not a medium to exchange goods and services. Sure people can barter and go back to primitive methods of conducting business. Good luck with that !

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

One cannot lose what one never possessed. Those who purchased houses they could not afford did not lose the money that would have paid for the house - they never had it. As for those who bought toxic assets, they knew the risks involved in that sort of speculation: A bubble cannot last forever. Eventually it will plateau or, if it is based on faulty speculation, plummet. They should be held responsible for their irresponsible speculation. Those who lost out due to possession of toxic assets took the same risk any investor takes. The banks which lent the money to those who could not afford to repay it made BAD investments. The repercussions of these investments are such that the banks would have been unable, for a time, to loan money. They would have had to take a step back and examine their loaning practices, revise them, and then implement new ones. If they were unable to do so, more competent banks would have stepped in to take their place.

The fact that banks lent out money so easily to people with poor credit ratings (which indicates a history of poor financial planning) was one of the main contributors to the housing bubble. People were able to easily obtain large sums of money -> housing industry noticed and decided to cash in on it -> Those lending money realized that they were going bankrupt when their debtors couldn't pay. They tried to get rid of the mortgages they held and those who bought them paid the price.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

You should read "Griftopia," by Matt Taibbi. Because the American people are losing big time and the perpetrators of crimal actions have been bailed out and their losses have been covered and they have been given more power and our financial system is vulnerable.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

I disagree with your analysis of the root of our financial crisis, but I will read the material you have suggested.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

Famous quotes on banking click:

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

well if you like 80 foot snow drifts and 40 below zero weather and hay fever and prairie dust Yea live there

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

i don't think those are the conditions for "doing business as a bank."

In fact, AB 750, California’s bill to study the feasibility of establishing a state-owned bank that would receive deposits of state funds, has passed both houses of the legislature and is now on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown awaiting his signature.

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/348460

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/california_leg.php

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 2 years ago

Interesting, I think that is what we need on a national level.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 2 years ago

Adapt or suffer the conseqeuences, we must all think like corporations, and work twice as hard, and suffer twnty times as much as they do, but fortunatly any high school graduate today is ten times smarter than any one running an evil job killing corporation. that's the answer, and it is happening at a fantastic rate, just look around for the new opportunities, be willing to start small, and think big, and you will adapt, while the rigid corps drown in their own excess, finding it impossible to attract talent and compete, they in the end of this cycle, say 2016, will be the ones living in FEMA swamps, getting food stamps to survive.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

Would You Believe the local Burger King here when you go to the drive through there is a sign on the window saying we accept EBT cards EBT is the card they issue for Food Stamps UNreal You want to Know something else that will make sense to you Watch this movie clip from Soylent Green here is the link You really owe it to yourself to watch this above any other video info

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjQO163P2E

[-] 1 points by setton (43) 2 years ago

You can not use food stamps at Burger King or to pay for any prepared food (like a deli sandwich or at any restaurant). EBT cards also carry any cash benefit you might receive aside from FS, which you may spend on anything you choose except alcohol or cigarettes. Whether you personally think it is right or wrong, there is nothing illegal with using a portion of your cash benefit for a meal at Burger King.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

I think it's cheap

[-] 1 points by setton (43) 2 years ago

Well, it's probably not the best use of your cash benefits, I'll agree to that. I also think it's kinda bad on the Burger King side- I suppose a person could withdraw the cash off of their card and still use it for Burger King, but making it so convenient... Sort of like in the old days when you could go to the bar on a Friday with your paycheck and they would cash it for you because they knew you'd drink at least some of it away... shrug

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 2 years ago

I've seen the movie, don't really love it, but watch Logan's Run, now there's a good one. Adapt means maybe if you have to live on food stamps you take that small investment and buy foods that build up your ability to compete on a day to day basis for a better life, it you choose to eat greaseburgers you will eventually crumble into the dustbin of lost genes. Survival of the fittest is a cruel master, but it does provide lots of flexability and second chances, but if a being bypasses all the warning signs and runs off the road because they refuse to adapt, then there is no other fate, and no one can do much to raise their prospects. We should help the poor, especially the aged the sick and the mentally compromised because that makes us worthy to live in this amazing universe, but living in the fantasy of epocolyptic or hyper affluent extremes like in the movies is not practical, it is rigid thinking, not usually rewarded with long-term survival.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

I wanna see you laughing out loud when your put in a FEMA Camp

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Alex Jones? Is that really you?

Paranoia is a contagious disease, for the weak minded.

[-] 1 points by fredastaire (203) 2 years ago

good call on the alex jones :)

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

keep laughing when what I said starts happening you'll remember me but I won't remember you

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Dear Government,

We don't want your insufficient government programs, handouts or so-called solutions to the masses that YOU "say" is going to help us.

Like meager portion-controlled feedings to animals, for the consumption by the 99%. The 99% want to decide what is best for us, by having fair and equal representation in our government. Not a government that is bought and paid for by the 1%. A government that decides when and how much to feed us our meager portion-controlled programs.

You miscalculated the portion-controlled feedings.

The 99% are now starving. Starving for our fair and equal representation in government.

Repectfully, 99% of the People.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Hai April, it's Master Splinter. Thanks for exposing these informations. While Shredder's out there destroying our planet, I've got my turtles in some intensive training in the sewers. Although we are invisible, the fruits of our labor are undeniably present, and there will be much more to follow.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

wow, I have no idea what you just said. Is it some sort of Shakespeare tragedy thing I'm not aware of ??
I am worried about your turtles.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

It's a reference to 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.' How that applies to this thread is anybody's guess.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No wonder I didn't get it! Thanks.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Don't worry. They have plenty enough pizza to suffice their needs.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

Exactly Watch the movie Soylent Green starring Charleton Heston it came out in the 70's but it is what is happening now Watch It!!!!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I have heard of the story, and I have a general idea what it is about. I won't watch it. Too disturbing. I'd have nightmares! I'm already disturbed enough by reality.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

No You Do Need to watch this movie clip to better your awareness it's not a nightmare it's the truth don't be ignorant of the truth I watched this clip and it made me feel better here is the link below this is more informative than the zillions of youtube videos out there Trust Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjQO163P2E

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

This clip has succeeded in ruining elevator music for me, forever. That is why I will not watch this movie.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

Ignorance Is Bliss

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Alright, I'll have a look. I'm going to keep one eye closed though! Do you have any idea what jimmycrackerson is talking about right above us??

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

he's joking about the movie cause soylent green was a food they fed everyone because there was no more meat milk cheese etc soylent green was a green powder of nutrients that kept people alive the farms were Controlled by the govt Watch the clip it's not as painful as you think you will actually feel better after you watch it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjQO163P2E

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

oh good. I thought that guy was doing something bad with turtles.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

We need to realize that the states have the power to enforce the constitution by use of Article 5, but we, the citizens of the states, must agree and see 3/4 of the states ratifying, primarily in a way that empowers us to further unify in the creation of constitutional government. That strategy is outlined here with defining the US military role in these conditions. If not needed see step 3.5 for dissolution of "runaway" convention fears.-------

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 2 years ago

Personally, what I think our foes have in mind for 90% of us is nuclear annihilation.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

Wrong that would mean they would have to die as well

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 2 years ago

No, they plan to hide out in there bunkers.

[-] 1 points by thefly (36) 2 years ago

they will need fresh air duh how can it be fresh full of Radiation??? man I would'nt want to depend on you for survival

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 2 years ago

They'll wait.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

You're right. They've been building and stocking their high-tech bunkers for the past ten years. Look at what they've built under Denver's new airport.