The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Wow - you reached back for that one :-)

Actually I was preparing, earlier, to write something about Mitt Romney, and had used a forum search on the words "Romney" and "Mexico" to find a post I had written back in January concerning Mitt's father having been born in Mexico. I was then interrupted, and lost my train of thought. When I came back to the computer later on, I noticed the post of yours that I quoted from, but didn't notice the posting date, so mistakenly thought it was something you had just written and felt it deserved a response. So that's how it happened.

Until "they" get him out, President Obama is still the sitting president isn't he?

No, he is neither our President nor is he Obama. Let me explain. First of all, he is clearly not the President of the United States of America, because he is ineligible to hold that office. Secondly, even if Barry had been constitutionally eligible and had won in a verifiable, clean election, he would still not be a legitimate President of the United States of America for the simple reason that it requires a lawful Senate to confirm an Electoral College vote for President and Vice President, and a lawful Senate has not been seated since 1912. The 17th Amendment, which was never properly ratified, and which was also in direct violation of the method of seating Senators as defined in Article 1 , Section 3 of the Constitution, is the reason why, from 1916 on, our original jurisdiction government ceased to exist. Those persons seated as Senators, Presidents, or Vice Presidents, had no authority whatsoever other than in their capacity as officers of Corporation U.S. If this is not readily understood by anyone, I suggest reading post #1954 on page 66 of this thread.

As to Barry calling himself Obama, that too would appear unlawful since there is no record of Barry ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro back to Barack Obama.

I thought we were on the same side here

I always thought so too. Is there any reason you can think of why we would not be?

[OrionLightShip]

Every thing is fine....go back to sleep America....your government has everything under control---Bill Hicks

Today I passed a truck going south from Asheville, NC
It was loaded with FEMA caskets
A mile in front of that truck was a flatbed with three APCs

Nothing to be concerned with.



Orion

[aljhoa]

45 Signs That China Is Colonizing America

Jenna, I know your heart is breaking, you know I'm not the one who's taking you down, I'm not taking you down.-
:
Whoah, Whoah,
-Having Molotov Cocktails in my bed, just trying to get this outta my head!
Whoah, Whoah.
-We lost the path, we lost the way, Tao-te ching- I can't translate!
Darren Farris - Jenna (Your Guru is Dead) - YouTube


The following are 45 signs that China is colonizing America….
#1 It was recently announced that China’s Dalian Wanda Group has bought U.S. movie theater chain AMC Entertainment for a whopping 2.6 billion dollars. This deal represents China’s biggest corporate takeover of a U.S. firm ever.
#2 Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve announced that it has given approval for banks owned by the Chinese government to buy stakes in U.S.-owned banks.
:
#44 One economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.
#45 China now holds approximately 1.17 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt. If you were alive back when Jesus was born and you had spent a million dollars every single day since then, you still would not have spent that much money by now.
» 45 Signs That China Is Colonizing America Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


-Talk of crime in the cities-
-The writings on the wall-
-Another Hollywood Break-up-
-Like that affects us all-
:
Every face, every race, all across this human place, you better stand up right now, and get yourself counted.
Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, better stand up right now, you better find your common ground.Darren Farris - Psychopathic Issues (album version w/intro) - YouTube

Al

[Mad Scientist]

So as a solder you are saying I can disobey, ignore any/all of his orders?

YES! Not only can you disobey them but you should, particularly any order that is in direct violation of any of the restrictions placed on government by the constitution. For example the military cannot be use for routine police work, or the random searching of individuals, or disarming citizens, etc.

Now is this an easy thing to do when you have been trained to follow orders without questioning them? Obviously not. However you are not required to follow illegal orders no matter where they come from. Of course it takes courage to stand up to a superior officer and say no that is an illegal order and I will not do that. Naturally there can be some unpleasant consequences for doing what is right. However this is something that has happen many times but it is not something that gets lots of news coverage. But just like the German generals who after WW2 used the excuse that “We were just following orders” only to find out that just following orders also can provide some very unpleasant consequences.

[rickoff]

No, he is neither our President nor is he Obama. Let me explain. First of all, he is clearly not the President of the United States of America, because he is ineligible to hold that office. Secondly, even if Barry had been constitutionally eligible and had won in a verifiable, clean election, he would still not be a legitimate President of the United States of America for the simple reason that it requires a lawful Senate to confirm an Electoral College vote for President and Vice President, and a lawful Senate has not been seated since 1912. The 17th Amendment, which was never properly ratified, and which was also in direct violation of the method of seating Senators as defined in Article 1 , Section 3 of the Constitution, is the reason why, from 1916 on, our original jurisdiction government ceased to exist. Those persons seated as Senators, Presidents, or Vice Presidents, had no authority whatsoever other than in their capacity as officers of Corporation U.S. If this is not readily understood by anyone, I suggest reading post #1954 on page 66 of this thread. - rickoff

So as a soldier you are saying I can disobey, ignore any/all of his orders?

Any soldier can at any time choose to disobey an order which he or she knows, or at least firmly believes, is unlawful or unconstitutional, and in fact it is their duty to do so. Every soldier takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so when an order is given by someone acting as Commander In Chief, but the person acting in that capacity is ineligible under the Constitution to act as POTUS and CIC, any military orders which come from that person are unlawful, unconstitutional orders. Again, it is not only a soldier's right to disobey such orders, it is the soldier's duty to do so.

Now, with that question answered, I would hope that every American serviceman and servicewoman would take this seriously and stand together to demand that Barry show full and adequate proof of his constitutional eligibility to sit as President and issue orders as CIC. Unfortunately, though, only a few brave souls have, so far, dared to take such a stand. One such person is Lt Colonel Terry Lakin, who ended up going to prison and being dishonorably discharged. Lakin did the right thing, and sufferred the consequences of a military court martial at which he was neither allowed to present evidence, or a defense on his behalf, and his request for discovery items (pertaining to Barry's eligibility status) was refused. I don't know how you feel about what happened to Terry Lakin, but my feeling is that this was a travesty of justice. The administration used Lakin's case to set an example for all servicemen and servicewomen to understand what would likely happen to them if they followed in Lakin's footsteps and questioned Barry's authority. When the decision was read in Lakin's case, and he was remanded to prison, I wish that every American serviceman and servicewoman had stood in unity and demanded that either Lakin be given a new and fair trial or be immediately released and recognized for his honorable service to our country. Of course that didn't happen.

Like all other individuals who serve in our armed forces, you will have to decide what your course of action will be when you are confronted with a situation which you either know, or at least firmly believe, is immoral, unjust, unlawful, and/or unconstitutional. I know it can be a tough balancing act and dilemma to have to decide between what is best for your career and your family on the one hand, and on the other hand what is known in your mind and heart to be the choice you would make if your career, your family, and your freedom were not at stake. If all would stand together for a brother in arms then justice would prevail, but when only one, or a few, are willing to take that stand then justice will be overruled by the unjust.

Incidentally, minoly, the quote wrongly attributed to me at the top of your post #2933 is actually quoting yourself.

[aljhoa]

It's just cruel.
It's also completely unnecessary.
Australia already exports chilled meat to many countries it sends live animals to.
Replacing live export with a growth in the trade of chilled meat,
humanely killed as close to the farm as possible, will benefit both animals and Australia.
Austrailia to Middle East Pt: 1/2 - YouTube

Al

[rickoff]

I'm not sure how the missquote thingy happend??? I hope any one reading this can follow the mistake - thanks...

Just go back to post 2933, choose to edit it, go advanced, and then either take out the misquote or edit it to show you were quoting yourself.

So, sounds like the whole Govmt is illegitimate including any enlisted service men to begin with since 1916. How can we take an oath to an illegitimate govmt... (rhetorical)

You can swear an oath to any person, organization, corporation, etc. What matters is that you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You have to decide which Constitution you are defending, though. Is it the bastardized Constitution of Corporation U.S., or is it the Constitution of the United States of America, which I always refer to as "the Constitution?" And yes, we should not even be calling those seated in Washington D.C. our "government," because they most assuredly are not. They are simply corporate officers.

As far as the armed services are concerned, the Constitution only permits standing forces in time of declared war. It does not allow for aggressive acts against other nations, nor military policing of any nation, including our own. And it certainly does not allow for the establishment and maintenance of U.S. military bases in other nations. Aside from declared war, our military mission is to be purely a defensive one and carried out by the state militias.

I just have one question here Rick, you know I served because I've stated so, Have you ever been enlisted in the US military?

No, minoly, I have not. I was ineligible to serve due to chronic asthma. Had I been eligible, though, I'm not so sure that I would have volunteered to go to Vietnam, which was the conflict of my generation. I believed that we had entered that conflict under false pretenses, and that we remained there for the wrong reasons, and history has revealed that was the case. Senseless and brutal events, such as the 5 hour My Lai Massacre, carried out by the American Charlie Company under orders of their platoon leader, William Calley. Babies were bayonetted, teenage girls were raped or forced to their knees to perform sex acts before being mutilated and killed - and their watching parents and grandparents were summarily shot as they begged for mercy. When the bloodbath was over, the hamlet was torched and upwards of 500 unarmed civilian villagers were dead. And here at home, I remember the National Guard killings of four student war protesters at Kent State University as if it had happened yesterday. These and other events were extremely repulsive to a great many Americans, including myself, and the outrage that followed these events was certainly instrumental in bringing about an end to the conflict, and our withdrawal from Cambodia and Vietnam. But what did we learn from all of that? Now we are involved in two more senseless conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, which began under false pretenses.

Hopefully you are stationed here in the U.S.A. and haven't had to take part in any of these unconstitutional actions. If you are involved in defending our nation here at home then I applaud you, although as I said before that is the mission of the state militias, not the federal armed services.

[dutchdivco]

Seems to me,

There's a lot of P*ssing in the wind, going on.
Firstly, if B.O. is only 'Chief Executive officer' of Corp.U.S, which only has legal authority over 10 square miles of D.C, why does anyone CARE where he was born?
And, if every President since 1916 hasn't been 'legitimate' "President of the U.S. of A", then again, who CARES about his ancestry?
On the other hand, there IS a legal concept, not sure the term. Perhaps "Cry wolf"? If your landlord sends you a letter, telling you to clean up the yard, or you'll be evicted. And you don't. They continue to send you letters every month, for YEARS, and never act on it. THEN, they start eviction, based on your failure to comply.
You CAN present a Defence, (and will probably win) that after so many years of 'accepting' (by their lack of action) the mess in the yard, they can't act on it now.
We haven't required previous Presidents to provide PROOF of eligibility, ever (apperently), OTHER than to have the Chairman/women of the Political party, write a letter to each Secretary of state, 'affirming' or 'certifying' that the Candidate meets the Constitutional requirements, and requesting that they be placed on the ballot.
So, to bring this up as an issue, NOW, with this one candidate SEEMS to be politically motivated. Especially since those who are raising this issue SEEM to be those who sharply disagree with this candidates political policies/positions.
Which is two of the reasons why those who support this candidates positions are able to dismiss these concerns as politics.
We perhaps can/should address the underlieing issue; requirements at the state level, that each Secretary of State is required to ascertain each candidate put on the ballot meets the Constitutional requirements to serve as Potus, and not simply accepting someones word for it!But I SUSPECT any attempt to get this issue to stick, against BO will probably NOT work, at least in terms of getting him 'kicked out' of office. Courts aren't going to do it, (I fear), and politicians are too scared of being 'painted' as a 'birther' for this to be pursued thru political process.
Beyond that, not sure many 'undecideds' or 'independents' in November, will be saying "I WAS going to vote for BO, but when I saw all this stuff about him NOT being a citizen, well, then I voted for the 'other guy'! (Which will be Romoney, who's Dad was born in Mexico, and policy-wise is a obama clone, anyway).

As for 'following orders', an illegitimate/illegal order, such as to commit war crimes, is something every soldier, etc. is obligated to refuse to obey.
However, refusing an order because the guy who gave an (otherwise) legitimate order, to a guy who gave that order, to a guy who gave that order, to you?
After all, unless you are in the Presidents military detail, the average soldier doesn't get orders from B.O. He/she gets them from their immediate superior; chain of command. And as long as the actual order is 'legal', i.e. not ordering you to do something which is prohibited under the Uniform code, I think you have to obey it.
So, I THINK the Joint Chiefs could MAYBE get away with refusing to accept/obey an order from B.O, but not anyone further down the chain of command. Assuming the order itself was not to do something 'illegal'.

While the military doesn't want people commiting war crimes, because they 'were just following orders', the military also doesn't want people 'choosing' to disobey orders, for such reasons as a belief the CIC may not have legal authority. Just my 'opinion', of coarse.Jim

[rickoff]

We haven't required previous Presidents to provide PROOF of eligibility, ever (apparently), OTHER than to have the Chairman/women of the Political party, write a letter to each Secretary of state, 'affirming' or 'certifying' that the Candidate meets the Constitutional requirements, and requesting that they be placed on the ballot.

Not quite right, Jim. Remember how it was brought up that McCain was born outside the US, and his eligibility was questioned? Of course he really wasn't eligible because of that fact, but a panel was formed to explore his eligibility, and guess who sat on the panel and signed their names affirming that McCain was in fact a "natural born citizen?" Barry and Hillary both. They were quick to affirm McCain, because if they hadn't then Barry would have been scrutinized in the same way. He wasn't vetted at all. And when Nancy Pelosi, the chairwoman of the National Democrat Party, sent out statements to each of the states' Secretary of State, affirming that Barry was eligible, she did not include mention that he was eligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which has been the wording used in all previous elections. Obviously she knew the truth and didn't want to sign a statement that had the potential to come back and haunt her.

So, to bring this up as an issue, NOW, with this one candidate SEEMS to be politically motivated. Especially since those who are raising this issue SEEM to be those who sharply disagree with this candidates political policies/positions. Which is two of the reasons why those who support this candidates positions are able to dismiss these concerns as politics.

I understand what you are getting at. Democrats have always brushed this off as politically or racially motivated, and refuse to even glance at the evidence of Barry's ineligible status. But remember that this isn't just being brought up now. Barry's eligibility was questioned well before the 2008 election, and the issue has never gone away. It has only grown larger. The evidence of his ineligibility took a giant leap forward when Barry displayed an obviously fraudulent "birth certificate" on the White House website, claiming that it was an official photocopy of his Hawaiian birth document.

I SUSPECT any attempt to get this issue to stick, against BO will probably NOT work, at least in terms of getting him 'kicked out' of office. Courts aren't going to do it, (I fear), and politicians are too scared of being 'painted' as a 'birther' for this to be pursued thru political process.

That's right, it seems that all of the Republican candidates were afraid to bring up the issue, as none of them did. But we must ask why that is. Polls show that over 60 percent of registered Republicans, and an even higher percentage of Independents, believe that Barry is not eligible, so it is way more than just a "birther" issue. Heck, the same polls showed that roughly 20% of Democrats also think that Barry might not be eligible. So with numbers like that, and mountains of solid evidence to back up a call for proof of eligibility, what are they really afraid of? What we can be sure of is that Mitt doesn't want to "rock the boat," as that would not sit well with the Bilderbergers. And by the way, the Bilderbergers are meeting right now in New York City to determine not only who will be the next president of Corporation U.S., but also to fine tune their final plan for worldwide financial ruin and chaos.

As for 'following orders'.... as long as the actual order is 'legal', i.e. not ordering you to do something which is prohibited under the Uniform code, I think you have to obey it. So, I THINK the Joint Chiefs could MAYBE get away with refusing to accept/obey an order from B.O, but not anyone further down the chain of command. Assuming the order itself was not to do something 'illegal'.

Well that's precisely the problem I've been talking about. If an order comes down telling troops to deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country that Congress has not declared war against, then that order is illegal because it violates the Constitution, which is the supreme law of this nation.

[poii]

Warning! Reading May Cause Cognitive Dissonance :-)

We have been lied to (yet again).

After following Dr. Keanu Sai's work for the last 17 years, attending his talks, checking his sources, reading the historical record and his court fillings; I can say with certainty that:
According to contract law, international law, and The US Constitution, The United
States has no title to the Hawai`ian Islands and therefore there was not nor is there a
"State of Hawaii" in the Hawai`ian Islands for Barack Obama to have been born in.

The record is all at:

Hawaiian Kingdom - David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al

Check the second video.

[rickoff]

We have been lied to (yet again).

After following Dr. Keanu Sai's work for the last 17 years, attending his talks, checking his sources, reading the historical record and his court fillings; I can say with certainty that:
According to contract law, international law, and The US Constitution, The United States has no title to the Hawai`ian Islands and therefore there was not nor is there a "State of Hawaii" in the Hawaiian Islands for Barack Obama to have been born in.

The record is all at:

Hawaiian Kingdom - David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al

Check the second video.

Quite true, Poli, and a good point that has long been overlooked. We never had lawful title to the Hawaiian Islands. They were seized by us, from the native Islanders, in what amounts to nothing less than an illegal act of piracy and plunder. Furthermore, even if the U.S.A. had reached a lawful agreement with the Islanders, not under duress, to acquire the Hawaiian Islands, the approval by Congress for both Hawaii and Alaska to be given statehood was unlawful since it occurred after 1915, the last year that a lawful federal government existed, and thus Congress had no authority whatsoever to confer statehood.

[dutchdivco]

Hold it

Sounds like 'WE' aquired the Hawaian islands in much the same way we aquired the Continental U.S.; yeah, in many cases we signed a 'treaty' with the native peoples, but in every case we renigged!

So, the same argument would apply to someone born in the contiguos 48! LOL

"That's right, it seems that all of the Republican candidates were afraid to bring up the issue, as none of them did. But we must ask why that is. Polls show that over 60 percent of registered Republicans, and an even higher percentage of Independents, believe that Barry is not eligible, so it is way more than just a "birther" issue. Heck, the same polls showed that roughly 20% of Democrats also think that Barry might not be eligible. So with numbers like that, and mountains of solid evidence to back up a call for proof of eligibility, what are they really afraid of?"

I don't know about the Bilderburgers, (and don't really want to). But, I suspect the thing they (Repub candidates) are afraid of, is the 'reason' for Romoneys nomination; the Repub party believes this stuff about how the election will be decided by independents, and how independents don't like partisanship, or birther argument.

Hence, this is why most party people were pushing for Romoney; cause they thought he could appeal to moderates, swing voters, etc.

Personally, I think they are WRONG. U.S. has ALWAYS been a center-right country, and I think still is; I think the conservative/libertarian message, WELL ARTICULATED, will 'beat' the liberal agenda message, every time.

The key is it has to be well articulated, and the party has to be 100% behind the candidate articulating it. Goldwater lost, because the party wasn't behind him, (although he and his surrogates WERE capable of articulating the message). RP, same boat. Reagan was the exception, and (one would think) proved the premise. Unfortunatly, many in the party leadreship positions don't really believe what they profess to believe, corrupted by D.C., etc.

So, party sucks, (BOTH parties) and we get screwed! Nothing new. Jim

[aljhoa]

Sounds like 'WE' aquired the Hawaian islands in much the same way we aquired the Continental U.S.; yeah, in many cases we signed a 'treaty' with the native peoples, but in every case we renigged!

So, the same argument would apply to someone born in the contiguos 48! LOL

I don't know about the Bilderburgers, (and don't really want to).

Personally, I think they are WRONG. U.S. has ALWAYS been a center-right country, and I think still is;

Because of Constitution Error, North Dakota is Not a State (and Never Has Been) | NewsFeed | TIME.com

Bilderberg Skull and Bones Pt 2 of 2 - YouTube

Fox Revives Myth That "America Is A Center-Right Country" | Media Matters for America

Al

[poii]

Cognitive Dissonance

With all due respect, has anyone read the link and watched the second video? Maybe two or three times as this is a very nuanced subject.

Hawaiian Islands were not "seized by us, from the native Islanders", but from the 43 years recognized, with numerous international consulates, constitutional Hawaiian Government.

After the seizure the United States negotiated a settlement not with the self‐proclaimed government who committed the crime of high treason, but with Queen Lili`uokalani.

"The Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President."

Queen Lili`uokalani was to grant amnesty to members and supporters of the self‐proclaimed government who committed the crime of high treason at the overthrow.


This is basic contract law ie. offer, acceptance and consideration. President Cleveland made an offer, and Queen Lili`uokalani accepted the offer of considerations to be exchanged.

[Aaron]

12 year old talks about banking

‘They’re robbing us’: 12-year-old exposes Canada’s banking flaws, goes viral — RT

Inspiring message from a 12 year old. Obviously had input from her father but just to have the awareness raised about this in children is awesome.