The American Ruling Class

[soundiceuk]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6KtqJyiPI7w

Please listen carefully to what is being said at these intervals.

This is really f@cked up!!!

This is proof there is some serious sh@t going down.

23:35

30:19

32:58

[aljhoa]

http://www.youtube.com/v/6KtqJyiPI7w

Please listen carefully to what is being said at these intervals.

This is really f@cked up!!!

This is proof there is some serious sh@t going down.

23:35

30:19

32:58

Scenarios for the Future of Technology
and International Development


HACK ATTACK
An economically unstable and shock-prone
world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive,
and dangerous innovations emerge
rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/bba493f7-cc97-4da3-add6-3deb007cc719.pdf

Al

[rickoff]

"The Pennsylvania House majority leader says voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win" the presidency."* Will a voter suppression effort from Republicans push Mitt Romney past President Obama in 2012?

(R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election - YouTube

That's all hogwash, of course, because voter ID laws would only guarantee that those who are eligible to vote will be voting. Those who are against voter ID laws claim that it would somehow discriminate against the poor and minorities, but that simply isn't so. Anyone can easily obtain a state ID card, which usually requires presenting two acceptable identification documents, such as a birth certificate and social security card. Then too, most all poor folk are enrolled in "government" sponsored benefit programs which require presenting proper identification, so how could voter ID be seen as a barrier to the poor? The only thing that voter ID laws would do is to drastically scale back on illegal voting by ineligibles and impostors, which amounts to much of the vote fraud problem. It's just one small step in the right direction, of course, because until vote counting and tabulating fraud is eliminated, no one's vote in state or federal "government" elections actually counts.

[Bizzy]

"The Pennsylvania House majority leader says voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win" the presidency."* Will a voter suppression effort from Republicans push Mitt Romney past President Obama in 2012?

(R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election - YouTube

Being a citzen of Pennsylvania atleast for the time being I can tell you this was long over due. The demcrats in this state are famous for voter fraud and voter intimdation. The reason it will help Romney is that it won't allow Komrad Obama to cheat. That is a good thing.
Bizzy

[Bizzy]

Scotus Declares Obama Legal

This is a dark day in our country. Our only hope now is Romney who promised to repeal this garbage legistaltion if he is elected.

[aljhoa]

Texas launching navy in all-out pursuit of Mexico drug cartels | khou.com Houston

Al

[rickoff]

SCOTUS decision on Obamacare

The SCOTUS 5/4 decision on Obamacare that was handed down this morning poses a serious threat to working Americans, a.k.a. "taxpayers." While correctly ruling that Obamacare's 'individual mandate' was unconstitutional under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which the administration had argued made it allowable, the SCOTUS concluded that the mandate could be upheld under Congress' authority to levy taxes, and that the manner in which Obamacare would be funded could properly be construed as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts was alone, among the so-called "conservative" judges in siding with the four liberal appointed judges to ensure victory for Corporation U.S. Of course this should come as no surprise, as several prior SCOTUS decisions saw Roberts standing with big government and corporate interests.

Congress has now seen that they can safely impose anything they want to, no matter how reprehensible or unconstitutional it may be, upon the people of this nation if it is considered as being under the guise of taxation. And, in this manner, the taking by theft from people who work, and people who have worked but are now retired, and redistribution of these earnings to those who do not work, will be ensured if the socialist/marxist agenda of Corporation U.S. is allowed to continue.

My belief is that those who think the TEA party movement went to sleep after their 2010 efforts to change the composition of Congress will soon see that this SCOTUS decision has only reenergized the TEA party with unyielding passion and determination, and that a great many conservatives who formerly did not wish to associate themselves with the TEA party will now openly join or at least express their support. After all, the TEA party stance that we are "Taxed Enough Already" is one that would be shared by nearly all taxpayers, no matter what political party they associate themselves with. In his original campaigning, Barry promised not to increase taxes on the middle class, but if Obamacare can only pass as a tax then that promise was a lie, just as everything else Barry promised. Nearly all politicians make promises they do not keep, so Barry is not alone in that regard, but that does not make it acceptable.

[rickoff]

Nobodies commented on it, so I guess i will. The media made a big deal of O'bummers 'executive order', or Homeland securities policy decision to NOT deport the 'dream act' kids, and to grant them 2 year renewable work permits.

A lot to do, about nothing. Living in Arizona, it had already been made clear to us that Customs was not going to 'concentrate' their enforcement efforts on 'law abiding' illegals, regardless of their age or how they came to be here, instead using 'selective enforcement' to concentrate on 'the criminal elements'.

It's hardly "a lot to do about nothing." What needs to be clearly understood is that any of those who came here illegally, and are knowingly staying here illegally, are intentionally thumbing their nose at our immigration laws, and as such are participating in illegal, criminal activities. Does anyone really think that a 16 year old has no concept of what constitutes illegal immigration, or that someone who came here as a person 16 or under, and who is now 30 years of age, does not understand they are in this country illegally and should leave? The fact that someone has knowingly remained here illegally for several years has not earned them the right, or justified their right to amnesty, which simply ignores their illegal activities and status. If these were people who had rushed to the head of a line of people waiting to get into a concert or sports event, all those who had been properly waiting their place in line would be rightfully offended and would demand that the line crashers be promptly escorted to the rear of the line or barred from entering the event, and of course line crashing is only an improper activity - not an illegal one. If we commit an illegal act, we expect to be fined and otherwise punished if our transgression is found out. Illegal immigrants should expect the same, instead of expecting, and being given, amnesty for their crimes and work permits they do not deserve. Keep in mind that all those who do pursue proper channels to come and work here, but are not yet here, are effectively being displaced by these illegals being granted work permits. Any jobs gained as a result of this amnesty should have gone to those waiting in line to secure a job permit, and even those people should have to wait until US citizens and legal resident aliens currently unable to find a job have been employed. With this amnesty, you create a situation where illegals will either take jobs that should have gone to those who are legally qualified to work, or will become (or remain) unemployed welfare recipients.

Now that this amnesty has been unconstitutionally granted by Barry, you can bet that even far more hordes of illegals will be steadily crossing the border to seek this amnesty for themselves. After all, anyone who can prove they are 30 years of age or younger will most surely qualify, since those who administer programs relating to this amnesty will have no way of assessing who was actually here when they claim to have been, or the actual circumstances of their arrival.

[rickoff]

not a commentary...just thought it was hilarious...
Why Ron Paul Will Not Win - Diebold Accidentally Leaks 2012 Election Results - YouTube

At first it does seem a hilarious spoof, but when you realize it is actually a mirror of the truth concerning elections, it becomes really sad.

Consider the statement by the man appearing as a fictitious Diebold spokesman: "I understand people's concerns, but from now on we at Diebold will see to it that we properly safeguard the illusion of democracy for all Americans." Now of course this is what Diebold would actually say if they were responding truthfully to legitimate voter concerns of fraudulent electronic vote counting and/or tabulation.

[rickoff]

Have you folks noticed a dramatic increase in e-mail messages which end up in both your 'Inbox' and 'Junk' folders but which have content that is blocked by your e-mail provider's "Smart" filters?

Here's a typical example, for a message I received today. A warning message appears stating, "This message looks very suspicious to our SmartScreen filters, so we've blocked attachments, pictures, and links for your safety."

For my safety, huh? Yeah, sure. The message comes from a patriot group that is reacting to the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare by urging people to demand that Congress repeal the law, and that is obviously the only reason the message is blocked. Similarly, I see other messages blocked every day for no other reason than the fact that they either come from a conservative action group, or mention a keyword like "unconstitutional," "repeal," "patriot," "Federal Reserve," etc., or mention anything negative concerning Barry, in the subject line or within the message. I'm interested to see if you folks are experiencing this same and increasing level of blocked message contents.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Screwd x SCOTUS, again, but so what?

Initially, I will attempt to claim a 'religious exemption', in order to avoid having $250 withheld from my tax return, as a 'tax' for refusing to get health insurance, (starting in 2014). If that 'fails', I'll pay the tax; its still FAR LESS than what it would cost me, in annual premiums, to get health insurance.By 2020, the 'tax' goes up to $750/year; STILL far less than what premiums would cost.
Particularly since we are bound to have MASSIVE inflation due to the profligate Gov't spending of recent years. In fact, $750 in 2020 may well have less 'purchasing power' than $250 in 2014!
And all this is assuming there will still be a functioning Gov't in 2020 !

The point I was making; in the past 2 years, Janet napolitono, Head of Homeland (IN)Security has shifted the 'focus' of ICE; Enforcement at the border, yes. But inland enforcement is concentrating ONLY on those who are deemed to be 'violent criminals'. Its a 'back-door' amnesty; REGARDLESS of your age, or how you came to be here, IF you can get in the border, and avoid commiting violent crimes, ICE is not going to attempt to enforce immigration laws on you. 'Dream act' kid, or no. The ONLY thing O'bummer really did, with this recent announcement, was say these 'kids' could apply for 'work permits'. However, since ICE doesn't enforce employment laws, except in the occasional 'show' bust of a chicken processing plant, these kids don't NEED 'work permits'. EXCEPT in Arizona, where the state IS enforcing employer laws, to a limited degree, which O'bummer has further pissed on, by revoking the agreement which enabled state law enforcement to work WITH ICE.
Jim

[Joit]

[rickoff]

An afterthought on Obamacare decision

The SCOTUS, of course was not obligated to consider anything other than the arguments presented for, and against, the case in question. The argument for Obamacare being legitimate was presented by proponents as legitimized by the Constitution's 'Commerce Clause,' but that argument was properly struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. That should have been the end of it. Instead, the SCOTUS majority, and most notably justice Roberts, improperly lost their impartiality in this decision by defending the unconstitutional mandate as being acceptable if considered as a tax. It was never argued by proponents as being a tax, or to be considered a tax, and surely was not presented to the public as a tax. If it had been presented that way, what Congress person would have voted for it, knowing their tax-paying constituents would angrily have railed against them for doing so? In fact, in a 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos, Barry vehemently rejected George's supposition that the individual mandate was, in effect, a tax increase:

STEPHANOPOULOS: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

BARRY: "I absolutely reject that notion."

[Mad Scientist]

Your thoughts do you think this is for real, is the Excrement about to hit the rotating ventilator, or is it just another false alarm? In any case we apparently will not have to wait long to find out.

[Web000x]

Your thoughts do you think this is for real, is the Excrement about to hit the rotating ventilator, or is it just another false alarm? In any case we apparently will not have to wait long to find out.

I don't really like speculating about info like this, but I have a feeling that this time it might be legit. Iceland has already paved the way and given us the model to follow: Ron Paul: Iceland Dismantles Corrupt Gov't Then Arrests All Rothschild Bankers... - YouTube

Dave