ecstatichamster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 10,504
Even just glancing at that article, it's hard to take Ehret seriously.
First off, he's talking about a Federal Act. All elections in the US take place at the state level. So, there really isn't a way for a Federal Act or President to stop state elections, unless the states somehow cede that power.
Second, he talks about FDR "taking the money lenders out of power." Well, he may have publicly run on that, but the reality is that he gave the money kings more power than any other President. The "Gold Reserve Act" and other emergency banking acts were all rammed through congress (with FDR's support and eventual signature). It was under his Presidency that the Gold Clause was abrogated. The Executive Order he signed "confiscating" the gold obviously didn't apply to the people and isn't law (since it wasn't passed by the legislature), but the people "voluntarily" gave up their gold thinking that the order did somehow apply to them.
I don't know why people think FDR fought the Money Kings/Lenders/Banksters. He gave them pretty much everything they wanted, basically selling out the entire country in the process. If you look at the events that transpired in the days following FDR's inauguration, and read the congressional record, it's very clear he was working for the banksters.
Lastly, the huge number of privately held firearms is basically what has kept the Banksters from officially foreclosing on the country for the past 90 years. That number of firearms has only grown, so any treasonous act, like publicly suspending elections, is very unlikely to happen. A revolution in this country with the people vs. the elite would not end well for the elite, even if the police and military don't join the people. The Well Armed Militia is still very powerful here.
I agree with you on all points EXCEPT if they postpone the election…well, they COULD postpone the election. We’ve seen anything goes since 2020 and this is totally plausible to me.