The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

It really doesn't matter, Al. All that matters is that the eligibility standards established by the Constitution be upheld. Descendant relation, by bloodline, of a candidate to someone of "Royal" blood, while perhaps interesting, is neither a qualifying nor disqualifying factor to a Presidential candidate.

“This information comes from Burke's Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England's Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline - the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes”

If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that we would always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines to lead us?

Granted the relationships are sometimes distant 10th or 15th cousins, but in a country with hundreds of millions to choose from, this simply cannot be chance or coincidence.
The Atlantean Conspiracy: American Presidential Bloodlines

YouTube - How George Carlin deals with Globalism (NWO)

Al

[rickoff]

Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoes AZ's eligibility bill

News was released today stating that Arizona's new HB2177 bill, which outlined eligibility standards for Presidential candidates to be included on the Arizona election ballots, and which handily passed in both the Arizona House and Senate, was vetoed by AZ governor Jan Brewer.

At first glance, many will be stunned and dismayed that governor Brewer took this course of action. After considering her reasons for doing so, though, I am in agreement that she did the right thing. Here's why.

Brewer opposed signing the bill for the following two reasons:

1. "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," she said. This is correct thinking, since why should the Attorney General, Secretary of State, or any other singular official of any state have the last word in determining whether or not a candidate meets qualifications. That could easily be misused at some point in time by an unscrupulous official intent on undermining an otherwise eligible candidate strictly for political reasons.
2. Brewer also explained, "In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President … to submit their 'early baptismal or circumcision certificates,' among other records. This is a bridge too far." I fully agree, and changing the wording of the originally submitted bill to allow for such records as proof of anything having to do with US citizenship, or documentation of "natural born citizen" eligibility was an unnecessary, irrelevant, and poorly thought out move on the legislature's part. If not vetoed, the Arizona bill would have only required presidential candidates to document their eligibility with either an original birth certificate or alternative documents, such as a baptismal or circumcision certificate, a hospital birth record, or a postpartum medical record. Also allowed would have been a notarized affidavit from at least two people present at the birth. An original, long form birth certificate should clearly be the only evidence of US citizenship to be deemed adequate as proof that a candidate was born in the United States. Any of the other suggested means are insufficient as proof, since each of them could easily be produced either with faked documents or documents which were falsely attested to, even if the documents themselves are genuine. For instance, If Obama was born in Kenya (as many people believe) and his mother brought him back to the US a few days after his birth, he could have been circumsized or baptized in Hawaii, or a doctor could have been asked to sign a postpartum examination record, and none of this would prove a Hawaiian birth. Neither would a notarized affidavit signed by "at least two people present at birth." Ann Dunham, and her mother Madelyn, could have easily conspired to claim a home birth in Honolulu, and have their signatures avowing that claim notarized, but it would prove absolutely nothing. This, in fact, would appear to have been the precise manner by which Obama's Hawaiian birth registration was secured. Proof of US citizenship for Presidential candidates must be strictly held to a much higher standard. Even hospital generated birth certificates are insufficient as they bear no officially certified state seal, and could be easily forged.

The Arizona bill should be rewritten to only allow a long form original birth certificate to be submitted as proof of US citizenship, and provisions should be included which require a candidate to swear by affidavit that he or she has never had allegiance or citizenship to any country other than the United States. Further, each candidate should be required to state the reasons why he or she is eligible to meet the qualifications for age, residency, and "natural born citizenship" as required under Article II of the US Constitution. A state election committee should examine the documentation submitted by candidates, and certify that those documents either meet or not meet the qualification standards. The certifications of the committee, along with the candidate submitted proofs and allegations, should be open to public inspection and scruitiny well in advance of an election, and citizens should have the affirmed right to challenge through petition the official rejection or acceptance of any candidate's eligibility, and to have standing to have their argument, and all relevant evidence, heard and decided in a state court of law before the candidate can be added to any election ballot. These are the only means by which states could guarantee fair, unbiased, and Constitutionally appropriate eligibility standards in Presidential elections. The fact that it has never been done before does not demonstrate that it is unnecessary. Rather, it points up the undeniable fact that adequate measures to ensure Constitutionally eligible candidates have never been carried out by the federal government or the states, and that all questions regarding a candidate's eligibility must be properly resolved before any election involving such a candidate as a participant may move forward.

To join in a petition to be submitted to Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, Governors, Legislatures, Election Officials and all other controlling legal authorities of elections in the 50 states, demanding proper validation of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate eligibility to be placed on voting ballots, click here.

Rick

[rickoff]

If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that we would always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines to lead us?

The reason for this is rather obvious. We The People, though turning out to vote in large numbers for a ballot included candidate, have not adequately participated in the methodology that selects which candidates will be chosen and included on the ballots. In the past, we have left this process to be carried out and decided by what amounts to a handful of corrupt political party and election officials who are quite willing to make their candidate selections for primary election ballots according to the desires and dictates of higher up state and federal officials. It boils down to the fact that local voting precinct officials are by and large simply yes men who will agree to whatever they are told to do. That is why it is so important for us to become involved as participants in this selection process for the 2012 elections, and no time should be wasted in doing so. We need to get out there and talk to people in our voter precinct neighborhoods, form committees to select persons to run against incumbent precinct officials, and show up in large numbers to attend precinct meetings and vote for our precinct candidate. That is how you can take over the local precincts, and ensure fairness and objectivity in selecting primary ballot candidates. If anyone has been unwilling, or is not now and in the future willing, to do what it takes to accomplish this then they have no right to complain about the candidates who were selected in the past, or those who are selected in 2012 and beyond.

Rick

[Bizzy]

To join in a petition to be submitted to Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, Governors, Legislatures, Election Officials and all other controlling legal authorities of elections in the 50 states, demanding proper validation of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate eligibility to be placed on voting ballots, click here.

Rick[/QUOTE]

I signed
Bizzy

[dutchdivco]

My thoughts

On this whole aristocratic blood lines, just as a comparison, it would be interesting to take 40, or 44 people, randomly selected from the American populace, and see how many can trace their ancestry back to the royals.Maybe this is a very common situation, geneology-wise.It would give a 'control group' for comparison. Particularly when you are talking 3rd and 4th cousins, 15th removed kind of things. After all, we know the royals were real F*ckers, so they may have their bloodlines in almost all of us?

On the birth certificate issue, Brewer vetoed a couple of bills, and like this, she gave a press conference where she defended her reasons.Despite her reputation for mangling logic and the English language, she aquitted herself well.
You could get into a whole "States rights" thing with this, but we already HAVE a Federal Election Commision.SHOULD, ideally, be their job.They earn a paycheck, that we pay, I believe.All their job really consists of is making sure each parties candidates violates the election laws in legally acceptable ways.

It is simply one more way in which both parties game the system.If you want a real education; volonteer next election to be a poll worker; I did it 1 year, never again.Both parties game the system is a million different ways.As an example, the poll station i worked was near a University campus; new students were told that in enrolling, they were 'automatically' registered to vote, and didn't have to do anything else.They showed up on election day, and had to vote a 'provisional' ballot, cause they WEREN'T registered.'Funny' thing is, it was only those students of 1 party that weren't registered.These are the kind of games both parties play.Whatever rules you set up, they will both game the system.

Anyway, I don't see any way that BO's birth certificate won't be a major issue, at least during the primary, if not the general.For a start, each Repub candidate should release their original long form birth certificate, when announcing their intention to run.
The details of the argument, which Rickoff has abley described here, will be lost on the sheeple.It has to be sound-bited, the way 'the Donald' did; if there is nothing there, why doesn't he just release it, and end the speculation once and for all?
As has been demonstrated, all BO would have to do is send in $11, and he could get a copy of the actual certificate.
Anyway, my hope is that at least, in the future, any candidate announcing will release their original long form BC, as a matter of coarse, just as they do with medical records and financial disclosure.If for no other reason than to forestall any speculation, at the outset.I am not enthusiastic that the politicians will set up the election commision, or any other designated body to scrutinise candidates to make sure they are qualified.

Any time you have a group of people who are responsible for 'policing' themselves, you have a problem.Medical boards comprised of Dr.'s, shooting boards comprised only of police officers, etc.Its a problem of both perception and reality.BIG problem in the senate, where the 'ethics' committee is comprised of congressmen.Rangle should have been tossed out on his *ss, and it shouldn't have taken very long.Sits on the committee that oversees tax policy, and he's guilty of tax evasion; COME ON!!Anyway, my thoughts,..Jim

[DrStiffler]

On this whole aristocratic blood lines, just as a comparison, it would be interesting to take 40, or 44 people, randomly selected from the American populace, and see how many can trace their ancestry back to the royals.Maybe this is a very common situation, geneology-wise.It would give a 'control group' for comparison. Particularly when you are talking 3rd and 4th cousins, 15th removed kind of things. After all, we know the royals were real F*ckers, so they may have their bloodlines in almost all of us?

On the birth certificate issue, Brewer vetoed a couple of bills, and like this, she gave a press conference where she defended her reasons.Despite her reputation for mangling logic and the English language, she aquitted herself well.
You could get into a whole "States rights" thing with this, but we already HAVE a Federal Election Commision.SHOULD, ideally, be their job.They earn a paycheck, that we pay, I believe.All their job really consists of is making sure each parties candidates violates the election laws in legally acceptable ways.

It is simply one more way in which both parties game the system.If you want a real education; volonteer next election to be a poll worker; I did it 1 year, never again.Both parties game the system is a million different ways.As an example, the poll station i worked was near a University campus; new students were told that in enrolling, they were 'automatically' registered to vote, and didn't have to do anything else.They showed up on election day, and had to vote a 'provisional' ballot, cause they WEREN'T registered.'Funny' thing is, it was only those students of 1 party that weren't registered.These are the kind of games both parties play.Whatever rules you set up, they will both game the system.

Anyway, I don't see any way that BO's birth certificate won't be a major issue, at least during the primary, if not the general.For a start, each Repub candidate should release their original long form birth certificate, when announcing their intention to run.
The details of the argument, which Rickoff has abley described here, will be lost on the sheeple.It has to be sound-bited, the way 'the Donald' did; if there is nothing there, why doesn't he just release it, and end the speculation once and for all?
As has been demonstrated, all BO would have to do is send in $11, and he could get a copy of the actual certificate.
Anyway, my hope is that at least, in the future, any candidate announcing will release their original long form BC, as a matter of coarse, just as they do with medical records and financial disclosure.If for no other reason than to forestall any speculation, at the outset.I am not enthusiastic that the politicians will set up the election commision, or any other designated body to scrutinise candidates to make sure they are qualified.

Any time you have a group of people who are responsible for 'policing' themselves, you have a problem.Medical boards comprised of Dr.'s, shooting boards comprised only of police officers, etc.Its a problem of both perception and reality.BIG problem in the senate, where the 'ethics' committee is comprised of congressmen.Rangle should have been tossed out on his *ss, and it shouldn't have taken very long.Sits on the committee that oversees tax policy, and he's guilty of tax evasion; COME ON!!Anyway, my thoughts,..Jim

Any time you have a group of people who are responsible for 'policing' themselves, you have a problem.Medical boards comprised of Dr.'s, shooting boards comprised only of police officers, etc.Its a problem of both perception and reality

This is a point of contention with me. I feel that such boards should be 50-50, so that with a draw it is then handed off to another form of oversight.
As far as LE, only an officer or a public person that has been in similar situations can understand what is required and what happens in certain situations that are encountered. When I was in LE in my younger years, I was involved in situations that I have yet and hope not to be in, in private life. One can not understand the tension and fear that LE's feel in everyday work. This is part of the reason (maybe majority) why they become hard and callused as do many MD's. A LE or MD can not have his/her feelings on their shirt sleeve.

Now with politicians, they are just plain stupid!, I can not in all honesty say it any other way. They are stupid, heartless and feel they are god like.

In short I feel there is a great divide between LE's, MD's and politicians and even though there are bad on all sides, the politicians have the least of the good among them.

[rickoff]

I don't see any way that BO's birth certificate won't be a major issue, at least during the primary, if not the general.

Eligibility matters must be settled before a primary. After all, the results of the primary elections are what places the final candidates on the ballots.

For a start, each Repub candidate should release their original long form birth certificate, when announcing their intention to run.

Yes, but that isn't sufficient to prove eligibility. The Dems jumped all over Donald Trump when he said he might run for President, saying that he would be ineligible by the same standards Donald holds up against Obama, because while Donald's father was born in New York, Donald's mother, Mary MacLeod, was a Scottish immigrant to the United States. The only question that arises, though, is whether or not Mary became a US citizen before Donald's birth. To settle that question, Donald dug up Mary's naturalization document, and World Net Daily news independently located her record in the National Archives. It shows that she was naturalized 4 years prior to Donald's 1946 birth. So you see, Donald, who was born in New York and has produced his long form birth certificate in addition to his mother's naturalization document, is the first candidate for the 2012 election to adequately prove his eligibility, since he also unquestionably meets the age and residency requirements for POTUS.

The hospital generated certificate bearing physician's signature and
hospital administrator's signature and seal:


The NY state generated long form certificate, again bearing physician's
signature attesting to the hospital birth in Queens, NY:


Mary MacLeod Trump's naturalization document:


Now it is time for all other potential candidates to step up to the plate and offer equal proof of Constitutional eligibility, and you can bet that Donald will loudly demand it. He will go after Obama, and anyone else who fails to prove eligibility, with relentless demands, and I think that's great. The only reason why Republicans did not take on Obama this way in 2008 is because their candidate, John McCain, was not Constitutionally eligible and they knew it.

I am not enthusiastic that the politicians will set up the election commision, or any other designated body to scrutinise candidates to make sure they are qualified.

Of course they would never do that on their own, and that is exactly why the states must take matters into their hands.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Yeah, thats what I'm talking about!

Rick, thats it, exactly. This is the way it should happen, as I see it. An election commission could always be 'bought off'; if its just 'out there', for everyone to see, than fakery will be more likely to be exposed.
Dr. Stiffler, I hardily agree on the 50-50, and well understand the 'fog of war' concept.And I believe it is well recognised, which is why shooting boards are normally composed of 50-50. However, many medical boards aren't.And lots of stuff never gets to the medical boards, for review.
Hindsight is always 20-20. Actually, I think a lot of the general public are willing to give law enforcement a certain, reasonable amount of latitude.Unfortunately, there are some who will always see wrong doing.
Actually, I felt a little uncomfortable with the talk about the video earlier.Can't view it, and wouldn't if i could. I just feel a little uncomfortable, judging the actions of soldiers in battle, based on a video. Without knowing the full context, what they were being told, what happened just before the video, etc.Similarly, I would take judging a LE officer's actions very carefully and seriously.Yes, I know there are 'bad apples', but I also am very grateful that people willingly do these jobs, that I am not able/willing to do, but am very glad that someone else does, and from which I and mine benefit.
Question the policy? All day long. Question the actions of the poor schlub who's job it is to carry out the policy? Well, there I'm a lot more cautious.
Politicians would have to swim up, about 20', to get to the level of Lawyers.And they would have to swim up another mile, to be able to glimpse the bottom of pond scum.Jim

[Aaron]

DOJ changes logo

The American Spectator : Justice Loses Its Stars and Stripes

DOJ moves away from American Flag.

[aljhoa]

Undeterred by the will of the people, the Clinton administration continues to work closely with the UN to implement its secretive, pantheistic agenda of global governance through a host of additional programs—all designed to strip private property rights from landowners and revert much of the American landscape back to its natural wilderness condition.
UN Taking over US Parks

Al

[DrStiffler]

Undeterred by the will of the people, the Clinton administration continues to work closely with the UN to implement its secretive, pantheistic agenda of global governance through a host of additional programs—all designed to strip private property rights from landowners and revert much of the American landscape back to its natural wilderness condition.
UN Taking over US Parks

Al

Well you can hear almost every politician cry and moan about the older population and how the nation is turning older and draining resource from all the rest. Well the older population is their worst nightmare because (we) remember what a country could be like before it reached this point. When a child I do not remember anyone locking their doors (foolhardy today) and I do remember a number of experiences where I had problems on the road and someone would stop to offer assistance, where today that offer could be highly dangerous. As a school child almost all of us were on our own going and coming from school, our parents did not hold our hands in a protection mode because of the environment and its human hazards. During this time the politicians were indeed laying the ground work for where we are now, although it was not in my childhood at a point where it was interfering with everyday life through color of law and outright ignorance of our rights.

The old people are not so worried about a free lunch as the politicians paint the picture, rather they are pis-ed off with the change in life and the future of life for their following generations.

The OLD people may indeed be the ones that change the direction, why some may ask when they think of old as old? Well the older of us know what can be, we were not brain washed, cornered into subservience and have noting to loose and much to gain by offering ourselves to the recovery of humanity.

Screw the UN! It's called 'Just Say No'. When the push comes to shove, don't be to surprised when its your grandparents that save you ass.

[dutchdivco]

Right on Dr.

A few more; When I was a kid, if ANY adult saw some kid, writing on the side of a building, or otherwise doing something that was obviously wrong, they would grab the kid by the arm or ear, and say "Where are your parents? Take me to them, and I'm not letting go till you do!" And then they would tell the parents what the kid was doing, and the parent would THANK them.
Obviously not any more.You A) might have this little monster pull a gun and shoot you, B) would be arrested for kidnapping or child molesting, and if you did manage to get to the parent, the parent would berate you! "How dare you treat my kid this way! Blah, Blah, Blah.
Another one; I had a paper route, for 2 1/2 years, from age 13 to 15. I earned the $ to buy my first car! Nowadays, newpapers are delivered by adults in cars; just too dangerous. Its sad. I learned so much about responsibility, handleing $ and budgeting, etc. from that experience.
Yes, there is much I remember from 'back then' that is now gone.
And I fear unrecoverable. But I agree, we oldsters are not going to go quietly into the night, and put up with much of this crap.Jim

[Moe R]

Must watch on Voting

This is like 4ish years old.

YouTube - Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections

[Moe R]

This won't make MSM

YouTube - America: a Call for Revolution 2011 (MUST SEE)

[Moe R]

The New World Order, coming to a town near you.


YouTube - FEMA Camps, Martial Law, and Civil War Coming Soon! (2011)