The American Ruling Class

[kcarring]

Check out this video, where person 'A' goes to several tables at New Hampshire precincts and simply says the name of a deceased person. Without fail, person 'B' at the table, in charge of handing out ballots, hands one to person 'A'. Then person 'A' says he does not have his i.d. on him, but person 'B' says that's okay, and that New Hampshire does not require i.d. to vote, which is true.

That is truly unbelievable. Here in BC Canada we are required to produce current valid government photo ID?!?! wow.

[Dave45]

its all a dog an pony show

[aljhoa]

its all a dog an pony show

PROOF: EUGENICS - BPA - 1 of 2 Alex Jones Infowars Nightly News 2011-12-30 - YouTube

Al

[rickoff]

Interview of Duncan Sunahara

You may remember that in post #2394, on page 80 of this thread, I included information concerning the theory that Virginia Sunahara, who was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 but who died a day later, may very well have provided the birth certificate number which B.O. is claiming as his own. In post 2394 I stated, " Orly [Taitz] has.....procured a court order demanding to see the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara, who is said to have been born the same day as Obama, but who died a day later. It is widely believed that Sunahara's certificate number was 10641, the number that Obama has claimed as his own, and the reason for this belief is because Obama's longtime friend, terrorist Bill Ayers, admitted that he would search public records and graveyards to find the names of deceased infants and young children who died BEFORE EVER RECEIVING an SS#. These deaths would never show up in the SS death index, so it allowed Ayers to assume new identities while remaining a fugitive, and for Obama to quite possibly fraudulently obtain and use various SS numbers."

Another reason for suspicion concerning Sunahara's birth record has now come to light. According to "official" records, Sunahara's certificate was processed the day before the Nordyke twins, and their numbers were 10637 and 10638. If the "official" records are correct, then Sunahara should have a certificate number lower than the Nordykes, but a recently obtained short form certificate provided to Virginia Sunahara's brother Duncan shows her number to be 11080, which is 443 higher than 10637. That is a statistical impossibility, since in 1961 there were an average of 48 births per day in Hawaii. To have a number this high, Sunahara's certificate would have had to have been processed 9 days later than the Nordyke twins, who were born a day later than Sunahara.

Quite interestingly too, an investigative team went to Virginia's birth hospital with her brother Duncan to obtain Virginia's hospital records, and had this to say about what they found:

"We were able to help [Duncan] procure all of the medical records from the day Virginia spent in Wahiawa General, and found that she was transferred to Kapi'olani [ because of difficulty breathing], but Kapi'olani insists they have no records on file. Hmmm, Kapiolani, the same hospital where Barry alleges he was born. No records, huh? That figures, since they would have changed Virginia's file to indicate that Barry was the baby they tended to that day, and would of course have removed any mention of the baby's death.

What I see likely as having happened was that Virginia Sunahara's certificate was processed the same day as the Nordyke twins, and shortly afterwards, which would account for her actual number [the one claimed by Barry] being just 3 counts higher than the second Nordyke twin. The altered numbering of Virginia's record to 11080 would be impossible if her record had been processed the day before the Nordyke twins, as claimed by the authorities, so obviously they are lying. Having given Virginia's number to B.O., they had to come up with a faked story on the processing and numbering of Virginia's record, and obviously didn't think things through very well. Furthermore, to come up with the 11080 number they probably looked for the next baby who died shortly after birth. This just thickens the plot, and with Hawaii DOH refusing to provide requested documentation concerning Barry and Virginia, we would expect that they would also refuse to show the actual records for baby 11080, whomever that might be. Barry and the Hawaii DOH are both banking on that information never being released.

Duncan Sunahara has made several attempts to obtain a certified copy of Virginia's original birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health, but his attempts have been repeatedly stonewalled by authorities. All of this is related in a October 31, 2011 video interview of Duncan Sunahara.

Incidentally, here is the latest update in the Taitz case against the Hawaii DOH, as posted today by Orly Taitz:

Update. Corruption in the state of HI does not know limits Posted on January 13, 2012


"I just arrived in HI [Hawaii] and checked my e-mails. Deputy attorney general Nagamine represents a pinnacle of corruption of a governmental official. Not only she refuses to comply with the subpoena, but she claims that my demand for the original birth certificate is frivolous and that the judge should charge me the cost of all the hearings and deem me a vexatious litigant, not allowed to bring any more actions in HI without leave of court. She completely disregarded the fact, that judge Malihi ordered Obama to stand trial on January 26 and prove his eligibility, that eligibility is the essence of the case and the birth certificate is the most important evidence. The level of corruption in the state of HI is unprecedented in human history. Don’t forget that the husband of [attorney general Nagamine] is a family attorney for Obama’s family and he handled Obama’s sister’s divorce from her first husband. I really hope that the judge will show integrity and will not be a part of this corrupt establishment. This remains to be seen." - Orly Taitz

[rickoff]

The king is in his counting house, counting out his money. He counts on funding requests included in his 2013 budget proposals to further expand socialistic big government programs which he falsely claims are all for our benefit. Will those funding requests be approved by Congress? Probably so, if the majority of those now serving in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are reelected in 2012. Heck, we don't even have a 2012 budget yet, and that is why every few weeks we will continue to see king Barry asking for a Trillion or more increase in the debt limit in order to continue funding big government programs and agencies.

Whenever there is talk of spending cuts, the public is told that such cuts will have to be made in Social Security and Medicare. That, of course, is a scare tactic designed to cause the public to loudly protest such cuts. And why should those who have worked hard for 40 to 50 years of their lives, while paying in to SS and Medicare, lose the benefits that were promised to them in order to make spending cuts? The real solution to spending cuts is to first eliminate all unnecessary and wasteful spending in government itself, and that means closing down all government agencies that are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems to understand the absolute necessity for doing this, and making it an immediate priority in the plan to restore our nation to sound financial footing. As stated in Ron's BIG DOG video ad, he would immediately close the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, HUD, and Commerce just for starters. Next in line would be the Federal Reserve and IRS. These are the only debt solutions which make sense, so why isn't everyone wondering and talking about why Ron is the only candidate who "gets it," and who gets it right? Ron Paul supporters understand the real problems we face, and understand the solutions, but those who would support other candidates seem oblivious to the facts, and perfectly willing to continue the status quo of borrowing and spending our nation into oblivion.

Every day we are bombarded with talk about one thing or another, and made to believe that these are the things that matter most. The lamestream media is very artful at confusing, diffusing, and obfuscating the real issues while convincing the public that the small or non-issue "issues" presented by them are all that matter. All of that is totally insignificant and matters not in the least if we concentrate our thoughts and efforts on such matters while ignoring the real issues and allowing our nation to go bankrupt.

[dutchdivco]

Rick, on voter fraud

I repeat, in 2004 I 'volonteered' to be a poll worker, (you actually DO get paid for it). I strongly reccomend everyone who can consider doing this, at least once. Its a real education.
Pollworkers are volonteers, and the system is run by the state. You go thru a 'training' that is minimal.You will see ample opportunities for voter fraud, i.e. holes in the system, and may even see signs of voter tampering. I did.
In Az., we HAD a system, where A state drivers licence, or (in the alternative) state issued I.D. card, (which could be obtained from the DMV @ no charge, hence no 'discriminating against the poor' was required to vote.
In addition, we had a 'provisional ballot'; if there was ANY 'problem' with a voter, (question of whether they were at the correct polling place, question of their I.D., etc.) they were given a 'provisional' ballot. Each provisional ballot had the signature checked against the voter registration rolls, to insure it really WAS the registered voter. Coarse, there is still the possibility of 'rigging', you can never entirely eliminate the possibility. But, thats how the system was set up in 2004. I haven't kept up on whether the courts have overturned the requirement for I.D. in Az., since. I guess I'll find out, in November. Anyway, its not that difficult to set up a system to check to make sure a voter is who they say they are, but there will always be ways to game the system; its like 'locks only keep honest people honest'. You just have to make it too difficult to be worthwhile.
unfortunately, there will always be some voter fraud. Kennedy 'stole' the election in 1960, well documented fact. Is that what lead to 'dirty tricks' and Watergate? probably.
After all, the 'trick' of democracy, is that it gives the 'average citisen' the illusion that they have some voice; JUST the illusion.Jim

[aljhoa]

Romney was born in the Mexican state of Chihuahua to Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt. Romney's grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States when the Mormon church disavowed polygamy; polygamy was a federal crime in the U.S. and Mexico, but ignored in remote Mexican villages.[1] When the Mexican Revolution broke out, Romney's family went to Oakley, Idaho, and finally ending up in Salt Lake City, Utah.

In 1926, Romney spent two years as a Mormon missionary in England and Scotland.

Romney took coursework at the University of Utah and George Washington University, but never completed work on a college degree.

In the late 1920s, Romney followed his high school sweetheart, Lenore LaFount, to Washington, DC after her father had accepted a government position. Romney became a speechwriter for Massachusetts Democratic senator David I. Walsh, then moved on to become a lobbyist for Alcoa in 1930. When LaFount, an aspiring actress, began earning bit roles in Hollywood movies, Romney was able to be transferred out West to continue the relationship. When LaFount had the opportunity to sign a three-year contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, Romney convinced her to return to Washington, and married her on July 2, 1931.
They had four children: Lynn, Jane, G. Scott and Mitt.
George Wilcken ROMNEY's Family Page

Mitt is not U.S. National and like ˈpresid(ə)nt Bush and Obama need not be natural born citizen of the United Republics of America.

Al

[rickoff]

Jim, what browser are you using?

[kcarring]

@Rick

Just a quick thank-you for all the great contributions and (I'm sure) many hours of typing, researching. You have a great thread, and I very much enjoy looking into all the stuff you bring to attention.

[rickoff]

Mitt is not U.S. NationalAl

Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan. His mother, Lenore LaFount Romney, was born in Logan, Utah. His father, George W. Romney, was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents. Unless G.W. Romney's parents failed to file citizenship papers for him upon returning to the U.S., then both he and Mitt's mother were U.S. citizens at the time of Mitt's birth, and that would qualify Mitt as a natural born U.S. citizen.

Again, to prove Mitt is not constitutionally qualified, you would have to prove that his father never was naturalized after entering the United States from Mexico. That's an interesting supposition, but could be difficult to prove. When George W. Romney ran for President he obviously was not qualified as a natural born citizen, but he could have gained citizenship after entering the U.S. I'd say that the facts need to be determined, and that Mitt should not get the green light to go on any Presidential ballot, primary or general, until the matter is settled. My own attempts at looking into the G.W. Romney citizenship issue have so far come up fruitless, but I did find that someone has in fact challenged Mitt's right to be placed on the Texas ballot unless he can prove his father was a U.S. citizen at the time of Mitt's birth.


I found this at scribd.com in this document. The above letter is included in the document, and you will see it if you scroll about half way down through the multiple pages. The pages which follow the letter are directly related to the challenge also. It is interesting to note that this person is also challenging Barry's inclusion on the ballot, and that there are actually four Texas challenges against him.

[rickoff]

@Rick

Just a quick thank-you for all the great contributions and (I'm sure) many hours of typing, researching. You have a great thread, and I very much enjoy looking into all the stuff you bring to attention.

Thanks for the kind words, K. Yes, it does require a lot of research, and time isn't something that I have much of lately because I'm right in the midst of moving to a new location. In fact, I will probably have to drop out for several days quite soon, or at least severely limit my Internet posts, as completing the move in the shortest time possible has to be my top priority.

Rick

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

I'm not sure, "Internet Explorer", I think. I had someone reccomend "Firefox", (I think it was) sometime back. I attempted to download it, and encountered some kind of problem, and so 'dropped' it. This was 2-3 computers ago, and so I haven't 'messed' with changing my 'browswer', since.

Being something of a 'Luddite', I try to stay with the simplest system I can. This new computer keeps offering to do things i don't want it to do, as it is.

As long as I can do a little research on my few areas of interest, and craigslist, E-bay, etc. I'm happy. This new computer WILL let me view vidios, but with the cheap landline connection I have, it takes too long to make it worthwhile.

Take the time you need, to get set up in your new place, rather than spending your time posting. And THEN, post some pics and details, about your new place! It sounds ideal! Hoping it will work out real well for you! Jim

[Nadda]

Ron Paul was loudly boo'ed tonight in the republican debate for his foreign policy. Ron Paul didnt like the fact that we assassinated terrorist leaders instead of capturing and interrogating them with due legal process. They boo'ed Ron Paul for recongizing the fact that invading they're country and bombing they're villages only increases they're hatred towards us. He tried to explain, that if they would invade this country and bomb our neighborhoods, wouldnt it increase our hatred towards them? Absolutly.

The audience didnt want to hear that. Gingrich and Romney, quickly replied saying "kill the enemy wherever they are" (which the audience loved)...so...when did the women and children of afganistan declare war on us? When did they become the enemy? cause we are definately killing them. Collateral damage or not, they are dying. When they die, new "terrorists" are born. Thats why this is a never ending war. Thats why 10 years later we still have not beaten the "enemy".

Romney wants a military so big, no one will ever attempt to attack us again because they will be afraid...Really?!? How did that work out last time? Pretty sure we had an HUGE military in 2001...did that stop "them"? Its a joke. Warmongering thats what everyone else is doing, Ron Paul knows it and got BOO'ed while warning the audience. Everyone attacks Ron Pauls foreign policy...its so hard to have hope for this country. Evidently people enjoy getting warmongered.

[rickoff]

Ron Paul was loudly boo'ed tonight in the Republican debate for his foreign policy.

I was listening, and I noticed that, but I don't pay it much attention. I was also watching, and taking part in, the online real-time Twitter poll of the debate, and I'm quite sure there were way more people doing that than the number that attended the debate. The results of the Twitter poll showed that Ron Paul came out on top in just about every category, including foreign policy! As a matter of fact, when the announcer showed a bar chart graphing the candidates on foreign policy, he kind of downplayed the fact that Ron had beaten the other candidates. He simply stated that Ron, and a couple of the other candidates, did well. A woman co-anchor at Fox News jumped in at that point and said, "Wait a minute! He not only did well - he did the best!" Here's a still frame showing the bar chart for foreign policy, with Ron on the far right:


Check out Romney's sorry performance rating! Doesn't this make you wonder how in the heck he "wins" primary elections?

Here's another bar chart showing the tally when all categories were included:


Again, Ron leads the pack in giving good, honest answers, while Romney was seen by viewers as
evading taking firm stances on issues, and offering political speak instead.

And here are the Twitter results directly after the debate:

Hmmm where's all the Rick Santorum supporters tonight that helped him beat out Ron Paul in Iowa? Makes you wonder how that could have been possible, doesn't it? Perhaps that was what resulted when the lights went out for one minute directly after the ballots were collected. No kidding, that really did happen.

Probably the best segment in the debate was when the candidates were asked, "What is the highest federal income tax any American should have to pay?" Their answers:

Perry failed to give a number, but we know his flat tax proposal calls for 20% tax rate.

Santorum wants 2 rates, 10% and 28%.

Romney says 25%.

Gingrich says 15% flat tax.

Paul says zero! And the audience cheers wildly.
Ron Paul, of course, is the only candidate who wants to repeal the unconstitutional income tax.

[rickoff]

Barry's arrogance

In a display of arrogant disregard and disrespect for law, Barry has gone ahead, while Congress is in recess, and appointed Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Incidentally, the NLRB appointees weren't even given background checks!

All these appointments are unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly states that Presidential appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. These appointments also violate the Dodd-Frank Act, which explicitly says that the head of the CFPB must be confirmed by the Senate. Bypassing the Senate violates that law – the one that Barry signed! The Dodd-Frank Act itself, which was put forth as "financial reform law," was of course nothing more than a government power grab and an expansion of Federal Reserve powers, and never should have passed scrutinization by Congress. But acting in violation of the Constitution and an act of Congress that he himself signed into law is absolute treachery. Barry has consistently picked and chosen which laws he will enforce, and which ones he will disregard, and that is hideous. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution (twice, in fact, as he flubbed the first attempt), and he should be expected to live up to that oath, and to be held accountable when he violates it.

With Congress more or less deadlocked until the 2012 election, Barry has said that he will bypass Congress by executive order whenever he feels it is necessary in order to accomplish his objectives. That isn't governance. That is a dictatorship. Although we should all be outraged at the things Barry has already done under his unconstitutional dictatorial authority, it is mere child's play compared to what he would do in a second term if reelected. Once reelected, the gloves would come off and Barry would plow full steam ahead to impose every detestable aspect of the Ruling Class agenda. We can't let that happen, folks. We must ensure that Barry is defeated and/or dethroned.