Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 1st, 2006 #1
biocultural Realpolitik
Agis's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: ZooSA
Posts: 697
Default Co-opted "Democracies"

There are 8 members of the supreme court, 179 circuit and 649 district judgeships; 435 members of congress, 100 members of the senate and 1 president who is 're-elected' every 4 years.

1,372 people comprise the 'power elite' of the US. If there are 300,000,000 American citizens, that's 218,658 citizens to every member of government; i.e. the US 'two party membership' model represents 0.00045% of the population; cf. communist party membership set at 5%.

1920–1929 Debate
By 1920, the House had grown to 435 members. In 1921, the House
Census Committee once again recommended increasing the size of
the House. However, at the time the recommendation was made,
concern began to be expressed that the size of the House was becoming
unmanageable. In anticipation of this criticism, the committee
also recommended adopting a constitutional amendment 63
capping the size of the House at 500 members. In the meantime,
the increase to 483 seats would have prevented any state from losing
members, despite substantial movement and growth in the nation’s
population, primarily representing a shift away rural and
agricultural states toward states with large cities.18 Without the increase,
eleven states were to lose seats through reapportionment
and eight states were to gain seats.19
A report issued by the House Census Committee explained its
recommended increase from 435 to 483 on a number of grounds.20
These included the population growth in the United States and the
idea that “legislative bodies must be more representative of the
people”; the inclusion of women as eligible voters since the 1911
census; the comparison of the U.S. ratio of representatives to
population to the generally lower ratio in other countries; the
increased constituent work of the House, especially with the return
of soldiers from World War I; and the increased legislative work of
the House.21 The report also pointed out that Congress had never
failed to increase the size of the House after every decennial census
since the founding, with only one exception.22
However, in response to “the growing sentiment throughout
the country that the size of the House should be limited in number”
the committee recommended a constitutional amendment
capping the House at 500.23 The report did not elaborate a further
justification for the constitutional cap, other than stating that the
sentiment of the citizens ought to be tested through the amendment

A minority position accompanying the report called for maintaining
the size of the House at 435.25 The minority report said that
the cost of adding members was too high; that the efficiency of the
body would not be increased with more members; that increased
membership meant that the body would become “more unwieldy
and cumbersome”; that increased membership would add delay in
the transaction of business;
that additional staff could “care for any
increase in the work required of Members”; that members had at
their disposal better facilities for transportation, communication,
and association with constituents and thus did not need more
members to manage the additional work created by the growth in
population; and, finally, that it would be unwise to lock in a future
Congress with a constitutional amendment.26
The full House took up debate on the proposal on January 18
and 19, 1921. The debate spans more than fifty pages in the Congressional
Record.27 Numerous speakers refer to the editorial positions
of newspapers regarding the size of the House.28 The debate
broke along both political and regional lines. The regional split was
most apparent; most states threatened with losing seats opposed
limiting the size of the House. These were generally smaller states,
southern states, and agricultural states. Larger states and states with
urban centers generally supported the limit.
On one side were those who believed that corporate interests
would more easily control a House of smaller size and that representation
of local interests would be threatened by increasing the
number of citizens each member represented. On the other side
were those who argued that the expense of increasing the size of
the House was unjustified by the benefits of increasing the membership,
and that the addition of members decreased the effectiveness
and efficiency of the body as a whole.
Eventually, the House voted by 267 to 76 not to increase the
membership and to reapportion the existing seats; however, the
Senate failed to act on the bill.29 Thus began a fight within the

Congress that continued for most of the decade. Despite repeated
attempts to either increase the size of the House (460 members was
also proposed) or to reapportion the existing seats, Congress could
not resolve the impasse until a special session was called in 1929.30
By then, the focus of the debate had shifted to reforming the
method of apportionment. A January 5, 1929, report by the House
Census Committee noted that in order to prevent any state from
losing a seat under the current apportionment method, an increase
to 483 members would no longer be sufficient. Further shifts and
growth in the population meant 535 seats would be required to
keep any state from losing a seat.31 In order to break the possibility
of a recurring deadlock between those opposed to any increase in
the size of the House and those blocking redistricting under the existing
size and formula, the committee proposed that reapportionment
of the existing 435 seats become automatic following each
decennial census.32 The bill was characterized by the committee as
being drawn in anticipation of a possible “emergency” situation
that might prevent “fair and equitable” representation for millions
of people if Congress failed to reapportion following the 1930 census,
as it had following the 1920 census. The committee explicitly
stated that Congress might yet choose to increase the size of the
House to 535, to 475, or to leave it where it is: “In this bill there is
no suggestion made to any future Congress as to what the size of
the House membership shall be.”33
The House passed the bill by voice vote on January 11, 1929,
but a threatened filibuster by senators from states faced with a loss
of seats postponed a Senate vote. President Hoover called a special
session of Congress in April 1929, with the matter of reapportionment
listed among the priorities of business.34 This time the census
committee’s bill passed.35


Last edited by Agis; March 1st, 2006 at 04:46 AM.
Old March 1st, 2006 #2
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Abzug Hoffman

Elected officials are not the power elite. They serve the power elite. The power elite are the ones who give the instructions like - make a clause in that bill so our customers can't sue us when our product ruins their health.
Old March 2nd, 2006 #3
biocultural Realpolitik
Agis's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: ZooSA
Posts: 697

Originally Posted by Abzug Hoffman
Elected officials are not the power elite. They serve the power elite. The power elite are the ones who give the instructions like - make a clause in that bill so our customers can't sue us when our product ruins their health.
It's a fine line between the 'power elite' and their arbiters or potentialities and actualities. Without the government it's questionable how much 'power' a so-called member of the elite would have...
Old March 2nd, 2006 #4
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Abzug Hoffman
Default The Power Elite reviewed at

This book is not so good because it completely ignores the Jew Lords who are the power elite, instead dealing with the WASPs who were generally sock puppets for their jewish "advisors". However, it does bring out some interesting concepts.

The last review at amazon:
"...Mills notes that the development of the huge corporation after the Civil War shifted the control of American society from local, landed elites to those [jews] owning and managing the corporations - the corporate rich. Corporations began to invade all areas of life, including the political process, as they do today. WWII and the Cold War raised the importance of the top generals and admirals. In addition to the top positions, there exists a vast array of support personnel consisting of lawyers, financial people, public relations men, and a host of various technical experts, all of whom perpetuate the positions of the [Zionist gangster] dominant few.
Traditionally, a well informed public is the counter point to entrenched power. But that implies a public capable of independent, interpretive thought and the free flow of ideas via various media. Mills claims that publics have been replaced by thoughtless, manipulated mass society. Educational institutions downplay thought in lieu of job skills, and information is controlled and sanitized by consolidated [Zionist] media. Political participation is manipulated with the same techniques used in product advertising: appeals to insecurities and fantasies.

The book was a corrective to the myth of general citizen empowerment in the economic and political realms. But it seems at times rather vague. The "whys" of this occurrence [the Jews] are largely missing. In addition, there is little commentary on exactly what it is that the power elite do with their dominance...

Last edited by Abzug Hoffman; March 2nd, 2006 at 07:03 PM.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.
Page generated in 0.07621 seconds.