"How to Peacefully Overthrow an Oligarchic Kleptocracy" (for Dummies) By Subcommandante ZerO

Hey guys... just some additional information here... everyone must have read my initial post by now anyway.

Read below for some insight into why these changes were made... two different opinions with totally different trains of thought.

Discharge Petitions

While serving in the U.S. House in 1993, Inhofe led a fight to dissolve a procedural rule that ensured anonymity for members who signed petitions to block legislation stuck in committees. Supporters of keeping the discharge petition rule argued that the publication of lawmakers’ names would make members susceptible to pressure from lobbyists and “flavor-of-the-week” legislation.Krauss, Clifford "Public Mood Bolsters Effort to End House's Secrecy Rule" The New York Times. Sept. 14, 1993.(5)Krauss, Clifford "Public Mood Bolsters Effort to End House's Secrecy Rule" The New York Times. Sept. 14, 1993.

But Inhofe’s effort to lift the 80-year-old provision succeeded with the support of Ross Perot and conservative talk-radio hosts, who said that the procedural rule allowed lawmakers to say publicly they supported legislation that they actually worked privately to kill.  “Without this reform, a handful of elite leadership makes the determination as to what legislation we can debate or vote on. The bottom line is, as long as secrecy is in effect, members can go back and tell their constituents whatever they want and still oppose their wishes in secret,” Inhofe said at the time.Krauss, Clifford "Public Mood Bolsters Effort to End House's Secrecy Rule" The New York Times. Sept. 14, 1993.(5)

So in hindsight who do we think was right? Our grandfathers who passed this original bill 80 years ago (Coincidence by the way? 80 years? Hmmm... what could have happenned back then?) or Rush Limbaugh types? You be the judge!

After further review I think that the best course of action would be to reinstate the original process in dealing with Discharge Petitions. I believe the members of congress would agree but are too timid to take back that which they once had.

The reason you don't see many DP's these days in my opinion is because members are afraid to step out of line for fear of reprisals... they have grown to love the sensation of holding the power they are afraid to exercise. Both the public trough and corporate donations/perks have served to turn them into well fed and docile sheep. The party leaders have in effect complete control over the whole process and it is causing major problems like those which we have witnessed on Barney Franks committtee... like the first opinion had warned.

The elected members basically have the right to vote for a compromised and larded deal or no deal at all. If they vote 'No deal' they may get disciplined again. If I could think of a 'Prospective Bill' to pass to curb government excesses and remove corrupting influences immediate reinstatement of the original passed during another prior time of crisis would be high on my list!

2010 remains an incumbants out year for me. If they are afraid to do their job they simply must go. That said there are those who are making a serious attempt to do a good job. Ron Paul and Alan Grayson come to mind regardless of how you feel about their political views.

With upcoming elections and corporate spending limits now removed by the 'ever so wise' Supreme Court... we should prepare for a lot of background noise this fall. MSM companies will no doubt have a banner year!

Our major problem.

It has been brought to my attention in the comments section that it would be almost impossible to write a bill that would remove corruption.

They of course are correct. If you prohibit corporate participation in the process those same contributions (though not nearly as much) will now be channelled through numerous connected and wealthy individuals.

A radical but unworkable approach would be to pay members of the House and Senate... say... $1 million dollars per year and then just make it illegal (treason charges?) to accept money from lobbyists altogether. Perhaps we should even re-institute sting operations against those suspected of corruption as existed many years before to root out the offenders.

My proposed DP 'going public' process would certainly be useful for advancing an 'Audit The Fed Bill' ... but really now... at this late stage in the game it's likely already too late to be of any use other than to confirn what we here already suspect. 

An 'End the Fed' bill would also be a great candidate for thus unique process... but I doubt that the public will support that until it is way too late once again. Heck the NY Fed is already getting into the damage control PR cycle with educational comic book propaganda.

Yup ladies and gentlemen we are totally screwed!

The rocketing shitmobile ride we are on has now lost it's ability to be steered by a bunch of clowns who are unable to realize they are corrupt and totally incompetant buffoons. There are no brakes now... and likely only more QE gas to come. Our ride won't stop until we crash. After that we can rebuild... I look forward to that day... but only if the system is drastically reformed and the likes of idiots and immoral bankster facilitators Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, Ruben, and Geitner et al must never be let near power again. 

To those of a religious disposition... please pray very loudly to your god.

To the likes of athiests and agnostics like my self... pull you head down between you legs and kiss your sorry ass good-bye.

This will not end well.