The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

July the 4th

So America was a place of which lovers and young people dreamed. If one could only manage to get the price of passage, he could count his troubles at an end.


The Jungle Quotes | GradeSaver

Howard Schultz: 'The American Dream Is in Jeopardy' - Yahoo! Finance

Al

[Mad Scientist]

Here is a little 4 of July history test. I got 9 of 11.

Know It All: Fourth of July Trivia | Gallery | Glo


Also with all the fires and dry conditions around the country we avoid using all these nasty fireworks, why you mightand that could get really scary.
here is a better way to light up the night sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al_nq...eature=related

[rickoff]

The founding fathers meant for the government to fear the people so as not to run wild. It is so sad what we have become.

On this our 236th birthday our founding fathers would be appalled to see what we have become. Thomas Jefferson would be screaming from on top of the White House for a 2nd revolution. Thomas Paine would probably be arrested by now for protesting the very government he helped spawn. And yet we the sheeple allow them to heard us to the slaughter! It is so sad what we have become. Bizzy

You're so right, Bizzy. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear firearms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Truer words have never been spoken.

[dutchdivco]

Yes, and

Gotta quote my 'favorite', Reagan; "12 scariest words; We are from the Fedreal gov't, and we are here to help!" And, "Any Gov't powerful enough to give the citesenry everything they want and need, is powerful enough to take away everything they need and want" And, particularly with Obummercare; "You can NOT possibly 'socialise' the Dr.'s (as in 'socialised medicine') without ALSO 'socialising' the patients!" I may not have the quotes verbatim, but thats the essence.

I suspect, Rick, that 'if I were them', I would plan on using discrediting, thru the mainstream media, as my 'first line of defence'; as in (On November 23 or 24th, 2012 newscast) "A group of people no one has ever heard of showed up at the capitol today, CLAIMING to be the 'Constitutionally elected representatives of the people'. (Eyes rolling) After a brief scuffle, they were escorted off the Capitol grounds, by Capitol police, who report there were no arrests.Details at 10, film at 11.
Now on an interesting note; recall the 'granny' bus monitor, who was 'bullied' on the school bus, and film of the incident was posted on the I-net? Well, Police are now investigating claims she put the kids up to it, and it was all part of an elaborate scam! For the latest, we go to our reporter in the field,....."
Misdirection and distraction,...the 'Magicians art'; "Nothing up my sleeve!"

VERY similar to how we saw Dr. Pauls campaign treated, with barely concealed derision and contempt, dismissing it as 'irrelevent and unimportant'. I SUSPECT that would be 'step 1'. If THAT wasn't sufficient, find a bunch of 'stuff' to discredit the 'leaders'; either kid stuff on their 'puters, or 'radical agenda' etc.

And YES, Bizzy, isn't it a SHAME, what 'we've' become, and allowed to happen!

What IS the limit, on the Congresses Taxing authority? Could they make us eat Broccholi, or pay a tax, er,...'penalty',...er,...WHATEVER if we DON'T
After all, 'everyone else' PAYS for our poor health, (an argument even easier to make under O'bummercare)as a rsult of our 'poor eating habits'; we are basically taking a 'free ride'? So, shouldn't we have to pay a 'penalty', in order to encourage us to 'eat right'?

And if the 'Mandate' to the States was considered 'Co-ercive', and therefore 'struck down', how can the People be treated differently; that is, how is it that the 'penalty', er,..'Tax,....er WHATEVER isn't coercive?!!!

Render unto the FED, that which IS 'the Feds', I guess. Once we agreed to accept pieces of paper, printed by the FED, (or even by the Gov't) as having some value, we set ourselves on this path.Jim

[Mad Scientist]

I suspect, Rick, that 'if I were them', I would plan on using discrediting, thru the mainstream media, as my 'first line of defence'; as in (On November 23 or 24th, 2012 newscast) "A group of people no one has ever heard of showed up at the capitol today, CLAIMING to be the 'Constitutionally elected representatives of the people'. (Eyes rolling) After a brief scuffle, they were escorted off the Capitol grounds, by Capitol police,

Yes that is one possibility. However there is another, and in this one the military steps in and says wait a minutenew united Statesjust all a coincidence? Or are we watching a high stake chess game?

[rickoff]

The latest challenge to Barry

On July 2, private investigator Susan Daniels filed suit in Ohio to have Barry stricken from the Ohio election ballots on the basis that he has been using a fraudulent Social Security number for 25 years, and is thus ineligible. By now, nearly everyone is aware of Barry's Connecticut issued SS number, and is also aware that Barry was 15 years of age and living in Hawaii at the time the card was issued. Barry has consistently used this card over the years, and as recently as 2009 when filing his tax return. The fact that his SS# prefix of 042 means that the number was issued in Connecticut, a state he had not even visited in the first 15 years of his life, is not Barry's only problem. Daniels, who was one of the first investigators to uncover Barry's fraudulent SS#, also found that the same number had been issued to someone born in 1890, who had been living in Connecticut in the 1970's. Presumably, that 80+ year old person had never found reason to apply for a SS card earlier, but found that he needed it to claim old age benefits when his savings dwindled. It is not only unusual for someone to be assigned a SS# that was assigned to a different person at an earlier time, it is virtually impossible. That is because when a person becomes deceased, their SS# is retired and is never to be used again. So, there are legitimate and obvious reasons why Barry's SS# is fraudulent, and authorities are going to find it very difficult to dismiss her court case. To ensure that she has adequate "standing" for this case to move forward, and with a timely decision, Daniels has established herself as a write-in candidate for President on the Ohio ballot. Her claim, of course, would be that for the state of Ohio to allow a fraud to oppose her on the ballot would not only be unjust, but could very likely cause her to lose the election, thus causing her irreparable harm.

By law, the Social Security Administration will have kept on microfilm a copy of the original SS-5 application attached to a particular Social Security Number, and this would allow verification of the person born in 1890 having been issued the number. Daniels, however, does not have access to that microfilm, as the SS Administration has not approved her repeated requests to view and copy it. That could quickly change, however, if Daniels' case is properly advanced. Note that her case names the Ohio secretary of state John Husted as a defendant who has been adequately notified by Daniels that Barry is ineligible to be placed on the ballot, and demands that Husted strike Barry's name from any and all Ohio ballots. Thus, it would appear that the only way Husted could keep Barry's name on the ballot would be if he could successfully prove that Barry's SS# was not fraudulently obtained and used, as Daniels says, and that of course would be virtually impossible. Therefore, this case has all the elements that could prove to be the most likely one to succeed.

A short video about this breaking news is now available, and can be seen here.

[rickoff]

Those who assume that the millions of illegal aliens working in the United States are adding to revenues collected by the IRS should take notice of this:

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that in the 2010 tax year alone, more than 3 million returns were filed with ITINs. Approximately 2.3 million paid no federal income taxes, and also collected a cumulative $4 billion in tax refunds

[aljhoa]

On July 2, private investigator Susan Daniels filed suit in Ohio to have Barry stricken from the Ohio election ballots on the basis that he has been using a fraudulent Social Security number for 25 years, and is thus ineligible.

To ensure that she has adequate "standing" for this case to move forward, and with a timely decision, Daniels has established herself as a write-in candidate for President on the Ohio ballot. Her claim, of course, would be that for the state of Ohio to allow a fraud to oppose her on the ballot would not only be unjust, but could very likely cause her to lose the election, thus causing her irreparable harm.

Therefore, this case has all the elements that could prove to be the most likely one to succeed.

A short video about this breaking news is now available, and can be seen here.

Al

[rickoff]

Gun owners take notice!

Barry and Hillary are planning to sign on to the UN GUN BAN TREATY on July 27th, just 3 short weeks away. For the treaty to become effective as US Law, the US Senate must first ratify the treaty. But does anyone here think that is a far fetched possibility? I don't. The Democrat Progressives and establishment Republicans who now control the Corporation US Senate are big on gun control. Once ratified, a treaty is considered as law of the land, and this treaty is no different. The UN would have the power to determine what guns, if any at all, can be sold to, or held by, US citizens, and violations of such UN rulings would result in confiscation as well as likely jail time.

Hillary and friends claim the sole purpose of the UN Arms Trade Treaty is to stop terrorism and crime. But the truth is, this abominable treaty would do nothing more that prevent Americans from defending themselves against terrorism, crime, and tyranny alike. Those who would commit such acts will never give up their guns. Mexico's gun ban has resulted in the worst violence and killing spree that nation has ever encountered, leaving civilians at the mercy of unmerciful drug cartels and killers who remain heavily armed, and yet Mexico still thinks their gun ban law was a good idea. In fact, when Canada very recently filed an emergency petition to exclude hunting rifles from the upcoming United Nations Arms Treaty - Mexico objected. Worse yet, THE UNITED STATES REMAINED SILENT! What does that tell you?

[aljhoa]

Charlton Heston, on NBC's Meet the Press, May 18, 1997.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Adolf Hitler, dinner talk (April 1942), in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44:
Guns - Wikiquote

Part 4 Adolf Hitler - The greatest story NEVER told! - YouTube

Al

[gene gene]

Barry & Hillary to sign UN GUN BAN TREATY July 27

Rick,
Are we completely POWERLESS to stop them from signing this treaty? I can't believe we have allowed ourselves to be in this position, with only these two speaking for all of us.
Is it to late to have any effect on this? We still have 3 weeks.
How many people even know this is coming up?, I did not.
Thanks & Regards, Gene

[rickoff]

Rick,
Are we completely POWERLESS to stop them from signing this treaty? I can't believe we have allowed ourselves to be in this position, with only these two speaking for all of us.
Is it to late to have any effect on this? We still have 3 weeks.
How many people even know this is coming up?, I did not.
Thanks & Regards, Gene

Hi Gene,

I'm sure there is nothing we can do to prevent Barry and Hillary from signing on to this UN treaty. And while it is not impossible for us to have some effect on the Senate decision on treaty ratification, my belief is that the Senate would be happy to oblige and do the Ruling Class this favor. Remember that people in the House of Representatives react differently than those on the Senate because they are all up for reelection in November. Senators serve 6 year terms, and only 1/3 of them will be up for reelection, so it is only likely that 1/3 would care what their constituents are saying. The others know that two to four years down the road their constituents will largely have forgotten this vote.

By all means we should tell our senators how we expect them to vote on this matter, and why, and let them know we will be watching this decision with great interest. I wouldn't pull any punches, either. Let them know that if they vote to ratify then you will not vote to reelect them for another term, and that you will do everything you possibly can to oppose them. Send them faxes and e-mails, but also be sure to call their office and demand to know how they will vote. Office personnel normally have a stock answer, such as "The senator is currently undecided, but I will pass along your concerns." They do this because they don't want to commit either way, so tell them that's not good enough. Tell them that they either stand for or against our 2nd Amendment rights, and that you demand to know where they stand.

Actually, our right to own and bear arms, although stated in the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, is not what guarantees that right. Yes, it is part of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments), so most people consider it to be a right that cannot be taken away. Truth is, though, all rights granted by legislators can be taken away by legislators. Our only actual right to bear arms comes from the Declaration of Independence, which recognized our rights and freedoms to be "God given," which was a wise thing to state, for anything "God given" cannot be taken away by man.

Consider this passage from the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It goes without saying, of course, that if it becomes necessary to exercise this right, the people must be well equipped to carry out that exercise. And the patriots who carried out their resistance movement against the British certainly did not do so with their bare hands.

Also consider this passage:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." -- Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21, which is older than the U.S. Constitution, which was based, in large part, upon it.


And this one:
-- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

[rickoff]

It wasn't long ago that gasoline prices advanced to around $4 per gallon, and then began falling off each week to reach current levels of around $3.25 per gallon here in northeast US. The two steps forward, one step back routine is of course designed to make consumers think it is time to breathe a sigh of relief, and be thankful that prices didn't stay at, or go above $4. It is supposed to make us think that $3.25 a gallon gas is a bargain. Another reason why gas prices fell somewhat was because it would not have bode well for Barry's reelection if prices had remained at, or shot above, $4. After the election, though, watch out! Prices will likely soar for gas and everything else, especially if Barry is reelected.

Another thing which will begin driving up fuel prices, perhaps even before the election, is the fact that both the US and the European Union are planning to implement sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear enrichment program. One of the sanctions will be to ban insurance companies from providing insurance to ships carrying Iranian oil. With tensions rising, ship owners will be far more than a bit reluctant to carry Iranian oil without insurance, and this will likely result in a dramatic slowdown in Middle East oil exports, thus causing imported US oil to skyrocket.

Barry won't worry much about this scenario, because he will simply blame it on the Iranians, and Democrats will likely agree just as they agree with Barry's claim that everything gone wrong during his term in office is Bush's fault. Funny, isn't it, how politicians will blame each other, and how political parties blame each other, but no blame is laid upon the Ruling Class elite who control these political puppets.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Whats the legality, of signing onto a treaty, which 'violates' the Constitution?
Talking, (of coarse)about this U.N. treaty, on guns.
And, Constitutionally, can the Congress enact laws which impinge on rights granted to the People, by the Costitution? Yeah, I know; stupid question, as they have been chipping away at our rights, for years.
However, I thought the last SCOTUS ruling on Guns, was saying that municipalities (Wash.D.c., as I recall) couldn't pass lwas restricting the right to 'keep and bear'.
Does Congress, uniquley have the 'authority', (under the Constitution) to restrict rights, even tho state and municipal Gov'ts don't?
i.e. COuld, (under the Constitution) the Congress enact Laws restricting gun rights, or free speech, for that matter, and have them upheld by SCOTUS?
If NOT, how can they ratify a treaty which restricts these same rights?
Jim

[wayne.ct]

Truth, Honesty and Integrity

Truth, Honesty and Integrity need to be evident in government or it doesn't matter who is there or what you do. The first task of a concerned citizen is to identify honest and good people who will act justly when they have to make decisions. I ask myself why the current crop of politicians in DC have not booted out the incumbent and the only reasonable answer I come up with is the majority are in cahoots. Think about it. And act wisely.