Mafia
Mistress, Dianne Feinstein, President Picks Who Gets Elected Bill, s.1487 -
A Constitutional Heresy 6-19-07
Mafia
Mistress, Dianne Feinstein, President Picks Who Gets Elected Bill, s.1487 -
A Constitutional Heresy
The US Senate has been a good investment for Ms. Feinstein. As US Senator from California in 2003 her net worth was estimated at $26 million and as US Senator in 2005 it jumped to a possible high of $98 million.
Ms. Feinstein has been married three times. Ms. Feinstein first married a colleague in the San Francisco District Attorney's office, Jack Berman in 1956 when she was twenty three. They were divorced in 1959. Their daughter, Katherine Feinstein Mariano was born in 1957 and is a superior court judge in San Francisco. Ms. Feinstein's first husband, Jack Berman, later became a judge; he died in 2002. In 1962, shortly after starting her career in politics, Ms. Feinstein married neurosurgeon Bertram Feinstein. Daughter, Katherine, changed her name from Berman to Feinstein. Dr. Feinstein died of colon cancer in 1978. In 1980, Ms. Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, a Mafia investment banker. Ms. Feinstein never changed her name to Blum. Richard C. Blum and Dianne Feinstein are both lapdogs for the owners of the Federal Reserve Fraud. More on Ms. Feinstein's life, later, because what she has done and does with her life gives us a clue as to why she has introduced in the Senate the unConstitutional, un American s. 1487.
May 24, 2007 Dianne Feinstein introduced in the Senate a bill, s. 1487, which is unConstitutional, basically guarantees rigged voting and rigged elections, and gives comrade Little George the means and method to name every member in the US Congress and every elected person in every city, county and state in the United States. Dianne Feinstein's bill s. 1487 takes elections away from citizens, candidates, political parties, and States, and places them under the control of the United States President. Elections are the way "we, the people" exercise our US Constitutional control of our government, which was established to be subject to the consent of the governed. VotersUnite.Org has a wonderful article on Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 entitled "Senator Feinstein's Election Reform Bill - A Constitutional Heresy". I would give the author's name, obviously a true American, but she does not need her name associated with mine. There are direct quotes from this article and Wikipedia in this article. Expect Feinstein's s. 1487 to be pushed through Congress when comrade Little George orders the nuking of Iran and the American people are focused on serious world events. Remember as horrible as the Mid East wars are, the owners of the Federal Reserve Fraud are particularly interested in shredding the US Constitution and putting the USA under Martial Law, and war has been a means and a diversion they use to get what the want in the United States.
US Constitution Article I. Section.2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States... Not after comrade Feinstein's s. 1487 passes. The United States' president solely will decide, not the people of the several States, who are each State's Members of the House of Representatives. Take for example the state of North Carolina. Lets say Mike McIntyre does not vote the way the owners of the Federal Reserve Fraud want Mike to vote. So the owners of the Federal Reserve Fraud tell comrade Little George to replace Mike with so and so. With Feinstein's s. 1487 the president will have the voting equipment in place, DREs, and the authority and power to rig Mike's election and elect the President's choice to replace Mike.
Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 is unConstitutional because the people do not choose the members of the House of Representatives. When the US Constitution directs the people to choose its representatives the US Constitution directs the people vote and count the votes and decide the winner. Under Feinstein's s. 1487 the people do not count the votes, the president of the United States counts the votes. Under Feinstein's s. 1487 the people do not decide who wins, the president of the United States decides who wins. The people are out of the election loop in Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 and have no say so in counting the votes, or deciding who wins. If fraud is claimed in Mike's or any election, and Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 allows DREs, and there is always vote fraud with DREs, the President is judge, jury, and executioner when it comes DREs, secrete codes, and deciding who wins.
US Constitution Article. I. Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, ... Not after comrade Feinstein's s. 1487 passes. Under comrade Feinstein's s. 1487 the States are prohibited from certifying who wins elections - the President of the United States certifies who wins every election. How is that possible? That ain 't right. Well it is not right, its unConstitutional, and its un American. But that is exactly what happens under Feinstein's s. 1487. Follow the dots.... The President names every member of the EAC. The EAC has total and complete control over DRE voting equipment. The EAC certifies the winner of every election in the United States. Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 is totally unConstitutional because the State Legislatures have nothing to do choosing its US Senators as directed by the US Constitution. In Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 the President of the United States chooses each and every US Senator.
US Constitution Article .I. Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, ... Not if comrade Feinstein's s. 1487 passes. The President of the United States would decide election audits, review results of each audit, and then certify election winners. Crazy? You bet. UnConstitutional? Yep. Un American? It is as communi$tic as you can get. Deceptive? About as underhanded and cowardly as you can get. Only Satan's minions could think it up.
Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 is a scam which is set up exactly as the Federal Reserve Fraud scam. Unfortunately I cannot explain the Federal Reserve Fraud scam because it is so horrible and cowardly and is such a massive rip off of the American taxpayer, if I say too much this Little George Administration, unConstitutionally will block me sending you this e-mail. You don't believe me. Randy is crazy as a loon. OK. Please do me a big favor. Go to the link Federal Reserve Fraud. Copy the article and try to send it to yourself and anyone who has a working e-mail address. It will not be sent. The government will block you from sending the article Federal Reserve Fraud by e-mail. Let's get back to Ms. Feinstein's horrible un American scam called s. 1487. I am just trying to put Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 scam in terms people can easily understand and dislike. For one second let's call Ms. Feinstein's EAC the FEC. Anyone who knows anything about politics bumps into the FEC. The FEC are very nice people and treat me very kindly. I consider the FEC my friends. For a second play like Little George and Little George all by himself names a four person board who runs the FEC. This FEC is all powerful when it comes to elections. Judge, jury, executioner. No citizen input. No Congressional input. Just comrade Little George who names the FEC Board of Directors - Four people according to Feinstein's s. 1487 bill. This would be exactly what Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 mandates. In Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 the FEC example above is called the EAC. Ms. Feinstein's EAC board, made up of four board members, is appointed by the president of the United States. No citizens judging elections. No state government deciding who wins elections. No US House and US Senate making election rules and deciding who wins elections. The president of the United States names four board members to an all powerful Election Commission which decides the winners of elections. Call it what you will. But after you sort through the BS the bottom line of Ms. Feinstein's s. 1487 is the president of the USA decides who is elected to public office in the USA.
Dianne Feinstein was educated at Stanford University and is a criminologist by training. She was introduced to politics by a kindly uncle (how kind?) who began taking her to San Francisco Board of Supervisors (city council) meetings when she was 16, Feinstein recalled later that this was a catalyst that would turn her toward a career in public service.
Concluding that her series of political and personal reversals had exhausted her future political prospects, Supervisor Feinstein scheduled a press conference to announce the same on what would become one of the most fateful days of her career, November 27, 1978. A half an hour before the anticipated announcement, a disgruntled former supervisor, Dan White, fatally shot Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, a homosexual political activist. This grisly assault propelled board president Feinstein into the position of acting mayor, and a month later the board selected her to serve out the balance of Moscone's term.
I am not a trained criminologist, but I am pretty good at figuring out conspiracies. I have a problem with the deaths of Ms. Feinstein's first and second husbands and also the Dan White murdering and eventual suicide. Just a little too strange for comfort.
At a press conference in 1985, Ms. Feinstein displayed evidence and gave away crime details of a serial killer known as the Night Stalker, subverted the investigation and led Richard Ramirez to leave town, murder again, before he was finally captured in the Los Angeles area. Weird. We don't have a criminologist who is a serial killer and a US Senator?
Ms. Feinstein supported the 2002 Iraq war resolution but later claimed she was misled by comrade Little George on the reasons for going to war. Scott Ritter stated Ms. Feinstein told him that before the 2002 vote that the Bush administration had not provided convincing intelligence to back up its claims about the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. In other words, Ms. Feinstein lied, she was not mislead and voted for war because she wanted the USA in a war. In May 2007 Ms. Feinstein voted for funding the Iraq war and again cried crocodile tears and said from one side of her mouth here's the money for war and out of the other side of her mouth blamed comrade Little George for a flawed Iraq War policy.
But
it's Blum's ties to URS (Big profits from nuclear holocaust) -- (URS
as defence contractor) (URS
Martial Law trainer) (URS
covers up September 11 Conspiracy) in which he controls about a quarter
of the stock -- that are certain to raise the most questions.
In July, URS acquired defense contractor
EG&G (the technical services branch that won the $600 million contract)
from the Carlyle Group investment firm. Worms, worms, and more worms.
Senator Feinstein was the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. In a December 2005 statement, Senator Feinstein stated, "I believe the Patriot Act is vital to the protection of the American people.
Ms. Feinstein was the main Democratic sponsor of the failed 2006 constitutional flag burning amendment.
Ms. Feinstein voted for the McCain-Feingold legislation. McCain-Feingold has turned into a monster which seems more bent of stifling free speech than reforming anything.
Mrs. Feinstein voted for CAFTA).
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban (semi-automatic firearms) , picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Ms. Feinstein has had a concealed weapons permit in San Franscisco. Its hypocritical Ms. Feinstein is against guns when she has had a concealed weapons' permit, but why in the heck does she need to tote a pistol? This woman has multiple personalities.
The Center for Public Integrity has reported that Feinstein and her husband, Richard Blum, have made millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his company, Perini.
While on the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms.[5] In April 2007, Feinstein's office denied there is a conflict of interest,[22] however, the director of the Project on Government Oversight who has examined evidence assembled by investigative reporter Peter Byrne[23] has stated that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”[24]
Additional scandal arose regarding Feinstein's apparent conflicts of interest, when it was revealed that her Senate staff members had attempted to remove references to these conflicts from the Wikipedia biographies of both Feinstein and her husband.[25][26]
In 1990, Senator Feinstein did not disclose that her husband had guaranteed her 1990 campaign loans, which resulted in a $190,000 fine.[27] A Feinstein staff member deleted this information from Wikipedia in 2006.[28][26]
Perini Corporation (NYSE: PCR) is one of the largest general contractors in the United States. At the end of 2004 its revenue was almost $2 billion. Perini is headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts and as a consequence bids on many heavy construction projects in Massachusetts. Its satellite offices on the West Coast are heavily involved in construction for the gaming and hospitality industries. Mafia
Perini was founded in 1894 by an Italian-American stonemason named Bonfiglio Perini. Mafia.
Notable Projects
San Jose Arena
Iraq War reconstruction contracts
Project CityCenter, Las Vegas, Nevada Mafia
Feinstein Speaks out on U.S. Attorney General Firings is interesting because she is the original Democratic cosponsor of a bill she is pointing out the flaw, the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. l Ms. Feinstein points out "little known provision in the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration." Feinstein put her name to the bill which has the unConstitutional provision in it, and then reminds fellow senators of her provision. Why? Ms. Feinstein is being deceptive. She is acting as if she is angry with the provision when she is really pointing out to her fellow senators they do not have a leg to stand. Her unConstitutional provision is doubly important when we consider comrade Little George will probably put the country under Martial Law and he and the prosecutors will serve indefinitely without any Congressional approval. Ms Feinstein's contempt for the US Constitution in her PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill and now s. 1487 makes one think she has bigger career goals in mind. If contempt for freedom and our form of government is the criteria for president certainly Ms. Feinstein would be a viable replacement for comrade Little George.
The President misusing power in the Patriot Act is exactly how he will misuse power in Feinstein's s. 1487. By the way, the heart of the US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales complaint is he replaced prosecutors to help Republicans in vote fraud cases. Ms. Feinstein will be ready to explain to her fellow senators the fine print in s. 1487 which will be ushering in a communi$t police state rule of the United States just as she is proudly pointing out to them her unConstitutional fine print in Patriot Act Reauthorization. Ms. Feinstein has abundant contempt for the US Constitution, freedom, being a straight shooter, and everything American.
Feinstein Speaks
out on U.S. Atty Firings
By Paul Kiel - January 16, 2007, 2:28 PM
Mr. President, I have introduced an amendment on this bill which has to do
with the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. This is also the subject of the Judiciary
Committee's jurisdiction, and since the Attorney General himself will be before
that committee on Thursday, and I will be asking him some questions, I speak
today in morning business on what I know so much about this situation.
Recently, it came to my attention that the Department of Justice has asked several
U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions -- some by
the end of this month -- prior to the end of their terms not based on any allegation
of misconduct. In other words, they are forced resignations.
I have also heard that the Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim U.S. Attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.
How does this happen? The Department sought and essentially was given new authority under a little known provision in the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.
To date, I know of at least seven U.S. Attorneys forced to resign without cause, without any allegations of misconduct. These include two from my home State, San Diego and San Francisco, as well as U.S. Attorneys from New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, Washington and Arizona.
In California, press reports indicate that Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, has been asked to leave her position, as has Kevin Ryan of San Francisco. The public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988, has said, ‘This is like nothing I've ever seen in my 35-plus years.’
He went on to say that while the President has the authority to fire a U.S. Attorney for any reason, it is ‘extremely rare’ unless there is an allegation of misconduct.
To my knowledge, there are no allegations of misconduct having to do with Carol Lam. She is a distinguished former judge. Rather, the only explanation I have seen are concerns that were expressed about prioritizing public corruption cases over smuggling and gun cases.
The most well-known case involves a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Senators Pryor and Lincoln have raised significant concerns about how "Bud" Cummins was asked to resign and in his place the administration appointed their top lawyer in charge of political opposition research, Tim Griffin. I have been told Mr. Griffin is quite young, 37, and Senators Pryor and Lincoln have expressed concerns about press reports that have indicated Mr. Griffin has been a political operative for the RNC.
While the administration has confirmed that 5 to 10 U.S. Attorneys have been asked to leave, I have not been given specific details about why these individuals were asked to leave. Around the country, though, U.S. Attorneys are bringing many of the most important and complex cases being prosecuted. They are responsible for taking the lead on public corruption cases and many of the antiterrorist efforts in the country. As a matter of fact, we just had the head of the FBI, Bob Mueller, come before the Judiciary Committee at our oversight hearing and tell us how they have dropped the priority of violent crime prosecution and, instead, are taking up public corruption cases; ergo, it only follows that the U.S. Attorneys would be prosecuting public corruption cases.
As a matter of fact, the rumor has it -- and this is only rumor -- that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed. I have also been told that this interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases, to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign by the end of this month.
Now, U.S. Attorneys play a vital role in combating traditional crimes such as narcotics trafficking, bank robbery, guns, violence, environmental crimes, civil rights, and fraud, as well as taking the lead on prosecuting computer hacking, Internet fraud, and intellectual property theft, accounting and securities fraud, and computer chip theft.
How did all of this happen? This is an interesting story. Apparently, when Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. Attorney.
The rationale to give the authority to the court has been that since district court judges are also subject to Senate confirmation and are not political positions, there is greater likelihood that their choice of who should serve as an interim U.S. Attorney would be chosen based on merit and not manipulated for political reasons. To me, this makes good sense.
Finally, by having the district court make the appointments, and not the Attorney General, the process provides an incentive for the administration to move quickly to appoint a replacement and to work in cooperation with the Senate to get the best qualified candidate confirmed.
I strongly believe we should return this power to district courts to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys. That is why last week, Senator Leahy, the incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, and I filed a bill that would do just that. Our bill simply restores the statute to what it once was and gives the authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys back to the district court where the vacancy arises.
I could press this issue on this bill. However, I do not want to do so because I have been saying I want to keep this bill as clean as possible, that it is restricted to the items that are the purpose of the bill, not elections or any other such things. I ought to stick to my own statement.
Clearly, the President has the authority to choose who he wants working in his administration and to choose who should replace an individual when there is a vacancy. But the U.S. Attorneys’ job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence. At a time when we are talking about toughening the consequences for public corruption, we should change the law to ensure that our top prosecutors who are taking on these cases are free from interference or the appearance of impropriety. This is an important change to the law. Again, I will question the Attorney General Thursday about it when he is before the Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing.
I am particularly concerned because of the inference in all of this that is drawn to manipulation in the lineup of cases to be prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney. In the San Diego case, at the very least, we have people from the FBI indicating that Carol Lam has not only been a straight shooter but a very good prosecutor. Therefore, it is surprising to me to see that she would be, in effect, forced out, without cause. This would go for any other U.S. Attorney among the seven who are on that list.
We have something we need to look into, that we need to exercise our oversight on, and I believe very strongly we should change the law back to where a Federal judge makes this appointment on an interim basis subject to regular order, whereby the President nominates and the Senate confirms a replacement.
God, I-Ching, all powerful good power, did Ms. Feinstein play a deliberate role in manipulating Dan White to fatally shoot Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, and in White's suicide and Ms. Feinstein scheduled the press conference to announce she was giving up politics as an alibi and draw attention away from her playing an active role in the murders?
---- ---- * -------
---- ----
-------
-------
---- ----
---- ----
62 Minor Superiority Changes to 56
62 Minor Superiority - One may achieve success by superiority through the fitting (appropriate) practice of constancy ( firmness of mind or purpose; resoluteness b) steadiness of affections or loyalties) , and this can be done only in response to the exigencies ( urgency, a situation calling for immediate action, demands). { "The flying bird is loosing its voice" means that its voice is sad because it is trying to find a place to stop. The higher it goes, the less likely that it would find anything suitable, but if it were to go down, it would find some place safe. The higher one goes, the more exhausted it becomes, and nothing finds this more true than a flying bird.}
56 The Wanderer - { When creatures
loose their master ( kill husband) , they go astray ( kill more) , and when
the soft and weak (Feinstein) ride atop the hard and strong (Blum) , they become
contrary
( opposed to the rules, ie manipulate murder) . Creatures that have become contrary
( opposed to the rules) and also have gone astray (Murder husband, manipulate
White to kill) always end up by having no fixed abode, so how could one here
ever manage to achieve small-scale prevalence (dominance, accepted) ) and the
good fortune that stems from constancy (resoluteness) ?...}
An after thought. Possibly Dan White was not manipulated to murder Moscone and Milk, what if he was paid to murder them?
The least dangerous, least expensive means to expose and help stop the owners of the Federal Reserve Fraud from taking away our right to pick our elected representitives and enslaving us in a communi$t police state is to contribute to Randy Crow for President.
