The American Ruling Class

[Mozaar]

In every election that choice is never really available to us, because the candidates are all preselected by a corrupt political process which ensures that only candidates who ascribe to the Ruling Class agenda will have a chance of being elected. Until we change that process, by actually taking control of it, it matters not who we vote for.

Good point! Now all we have to do is find a few hundred people that are uncorruptable to make all the rules. Excuse my cynicism, but what you are asking is huge. Trusting people who we do not know personally who can deliver a good sales pitch will ultimately get the post. A process that is currently in place.

but we do not elect our government representatives to rule us. Instead, their assignment is to serve us. There are a great many representatives in Washington who obviously have forgotten what their assignment is, and it is now (and always has been) our responsibility to remove and replace these representatives with people who do understand their mission is to serve the interests of the public and the nation.

The concept of government to be of service of the people does not really need to be reintroduced. Its what we assume exist today. The funny thing about this is that no matter who you put as your representative, they will eventually assume a status above that of the people that was suppose to be represented. This is because our needs are not simple. The longer our want list the more powers will need to be assumed to provide that demand, period. No one has forgotten anything, its just that the game is rigged.

If you, and others who believe that love and peace alone can overcome evil, will wake up and take active steps to participate in the Precinct Strategy, which I talked about in post #115 on page 4, there is every reason to believe that we can bring about positive and peaceful change that will restore the integrity, accountability, freedom, and liberty that our Founding Fathers intended for us

You are right I have not read it, but I will. My reluctance is basically because I assume it is very intelligently written to really gather the kind of emotional inertia change really needs. You witness the election last year. People want change however they had it backed up by anything appealing to the imagination even if its backed up by a character with more holes in it than swiss cheese. It had nothing to do with policy proposals or popluar public ideas for the future.

I am actively participating in that action plan, and am encouraging others to do the same, because I truly believe it is our best opportunity (and may in fact be our last opportunity) to restore our freedom and liberties. That is what I want for my family and my descendants, and I think that is what most everyone really wants. Perhaps I am wrong, and I certainly cannot speak for you. Exactly what is it that you would like to achieve, and to leave in perpetuity to your descendants? Do you have a plan of action to achieve that? If so, are you actively pursuing it? If, as you stated, "little is done with the information we learned [in this forum thread]," then of course there would be little chance to succeed in overcoming tyranny.

Good for you, Rickoff! I believe ideas passed down from generation to generation are like gold. It will be up to our decendants to refine those ideas and make them better. Deja vu? My approach is actually quite different. It may sound silly to you but I do a lot of prayer and meditation. Through this I affect present and future generations in themes of love, peace and happiness. This is what we all want right? I write essays on these to share with everyone. I believe I am influenced by a higher power and I am at peace. I do not fear these people, this ruling class. They are a manifestation of the weak minded, those that believe they deserve their weaker position. My decendants, your decendants? They will be fine, I am sure they will do the right thing and follow their bliss.

[h20power]

Hi Mozaar,
The only way I see in doing this is getting the original 13th put in place and strongly enforced. Once that is in place it safeguards the Republic against corruption done by our Representatives. If the do so they loose their citizenship, and more. TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment, Original 13th Amendment Is Missing

If we are to have a chance at saving the republic that has to be a part of it, and note the clock is ticking only 22 months now till they crash the dollar and try to end the republic once and for all into the North American Union.


h2opower.

[rickoff]

Yes, H2O, the original 13th Amendment should be considered as very important to safeguarding our liberties. It can still be had, too, as we talked about earlier in this thread. There is no time limit upon ratification, and the only state remaining, in need of ratification, is Virginia. Anyone who lives in Virginia should be hounding their state legislature daily to demand formal ratification, and to demand an answer as to why it has not been done yet. Those of us living outside Virginia should also be writing to members of the Virginia legislature and encouraging them to step forward and do what is right, and to make this their #1 priority. Here is a link to a Wikipedia article showing a list of the 40 current members of the Virginia Senate: Senate of Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within the senate list you can click on any of the names and find external links to their e-mail. For example, by following the links provided for the first name in the list, John Miller, we can find that his e-mail address is mailto:district01@senate.virginia.gov

For those who did not read about the original 13th amendment earlier in this thread, and do not understand its importance, this is the actual wording:

"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

As you can see, lawyers would be ineligible to run for office, because they claim the title "esquire" after their name, and President Obama would have lost his citizenship (if indeed he even is a US citizen) by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from a foreign government. It's no wonder that politicians don't want to talk about this!

To read the earlier posts on this subject, please see posts #161 through 168 on page 6 of this thread.

Rick

[rickoff]

Good point! Now all we have to do is find a few hundred people that are uncorruptable to make all the rules. Excuse my cynicism, but what you are asking is huge. Trusting people who we do not know personally who can deliver a good sales pitch will ultimately get the post. A process that is currently in place.

A few hundred people - is that reall "huge?" There are more than 300 million people living in the United States. There are 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators, so there are 535 positions to fill. Of these, we need to fill at least 2/3 of these positions with ethical people. That amounts to 290 ethical Congessmen, and 67 ethical Senators, for a total of 357, and that amounts to little more than one ethical person in a million citizens. Do you think you could find one? How about you? Are you "uncorruptable?" Actually, there's no such word, but I'm sure you must have meant incorruptible, right? Now let's assume that you are one of the ethical people in the population. Can you think of a few ethical adult friends and/or relatives who you trust, and who live within your voting precinct? If so, isn't it likely that they may also know other trustworthy people who you may not yet be personally acquainted with? Now suppose that you ask your friends and relatives to come to a special meeting, and to invite their trusted friends and relatives to join in. At the meeting, you explain the Precinct Strategy, and how it can be used effectively and peacefully to take back our country and eliminate corruption by taking control of the major political parties. Actually, we only need to control one party to start out with, and that would be the Republican party, because the incumbents must go. Let's say that most of the people you have invited to the meeting agree with you and are at least willing to attend two Republican precinct meetings, to learn how things are done, along with one more group meeting. Before the meeting adjourns, you ask everyone to write down either their own name, or the name of someone else within the group, who they feel would be a good representative to serve as an officer of the local precinct. There are only a few precinct officers who actually serve on the precinct board, and they are elected by voters who attend precinct meetings. Anyone can vote, provided they are a voter registered to the party in question and have attended at least two meetings prior to the one in which they will be voting. When the vote comes around, you nominate and elect the individuals your group has chosen (those who have agreed to serve, of course). Once in office, these individuals get to nominate party candidates for local offices and state legislative offices, and to attend and vote in state meetings. Get the picture? You clean things from the bottom up. At the state level you are selecting the candidates who will run for Congressional and Senatorial seats. By taking control of the process, you ensure that lawyers and elitists do not get a chance at being elected, and that ordinary citizens like yourself will be the ones running for election. You simply need to hold potential candidates to high ethical standards, and require them to sign an affidavit stating that they will pursue the actions you deem necessary to bring about responsible and constitutional government. In the unlikely event that you cannot find an ethical citizen candidate, you then nominate one of your precinct officers. It is not difficult to see how this concept can and will actually work. To be effective, of course, this requires people in the majority of your state precincts to become active participants in the strategy. When you go to a precinct meeting I think you will be surprised to see how few people actually attend, and that a large number of participants is not required for a precinct takeover. Still, the more the better, and that's where you come in. Either you spearhead an effort, join an existing one, or you sit at home and meditate, and pray that someone else will do what is needed. That's fine if that's the best way you feel you can contribute. At least the activists among us will have the comfort of knowing you are for us, rather than against us. Better friend than foe, though it really would help if you would show up at the precinct meetings to cast your vote. That's where your vote really counts - not the one like you made last November.

The concept of government to be of service of the people does not really need to be reintroduced. Its what we assume exist today. The funny thing about this is that no matter who you put as your representative, they will eventually assume a status above that of the people that was suppose to be represented. This is because our needs are not simple. The longer our want list the more powers will need to be assumed to provide that demand, period. No one has forgotten anything, its just that the game is rigged.

I don't assume anything, and we all know politicians are as crooked as all getout. Yes, we all know the game is currently rigged, and that's why we plan to take down the rigging. And instead of reelecting career politicians who gradually become more and more corrupted, as per your example, we will elect new representatives every term. Your want list can be just as long as you desire, provided you are willing to work for those wants instead of expecting the government to be your provider. What we need is far less government, and we need legislators who will take the necessary steps to reduce government size and government spending.

You are right I have not read it [The Precinct Plan], but I will. My reluctance is basically because I assume it is very intelligently written to really gather the kind of emotional inertia change really needs. You witness the election last year. People want change however they had it backed up by anything appealing to the imagination even if its backed up by a character with more holes in it than swiss cheese. It had nothing to do with policy proposals or popluar public ideas for the future.

Yes, in the last election everyone wanted change but they had no idea how to bring about real change, so they were quick to attach their hopes to the first candidate to come along with the slogan, "Change we can believe in." It was purely an emotional attachment, just as you say. There was no thought given by the voters as to what would actually bring about the changes they want to see happen. And it can not happen if we continue to elect and reelect the same corrupt politicians and administrators over and over. That's why the Precinct Strategy is the only realistically possible method to peacefully set things straight. It is all based on logic, common sense, education, and good planning. It has nothing to do with emotion.

I do not fear these people, this ruling class. They are a manifestation of the weak minded, those that believe they deserve their weaker position. My decendants, your decendants? They will be fine, I am sure they will do the right thing and follow their bliss.

I don't fear them either, and my intention is not to instill fear. I will openly talk about them, though, hoping to raise public awareness, and will do all I can to dethrone them through peaceful means. The Ruling Class is very real, and does not simply exist as a manifestation by weak minds. You may think you are strong, but when the day comes that nazi-like storm troopers show up at your door to seize your property and separate you from your family members, what will be your response?


I hope that my descendants won't count on bliss to guide them. Remember the saying - "Ignorance is bliss."-Thomas Gray
I would hope that my descendants realize that doing the right thing does not always involve what makes them feel happy or euphoric.

I'm not trying to twist your arm, Mozaar, and I am not what stands in the way of your peace and happiness. I am a peaceful and happy man myself, but I can see it isn't likely that there will be very much that you and I will agree upon, so probably the best we can do is to agree to disagree and wish each other well.

Best wishes to you,

Rick

[rickoff]

I just assume everything he [Barack Obama] says is a lie. Maybe someday he'll be caught uttering the truth.

Ummm yeah, but let's not hold our breath while waiting for it.

[rickoff]

Here's a very interesting documentary video concerning the US dollar bill. It's a long video, and I found the most interesting part to start at 2:02:06 elapsed time, so suggest that is where you begin. This segment is of Doc Marquis, a former Illuminati member who discloses what he knows about the figures seen on the dollar bill. If you find what you see to be of interest, then you can go back to the beginning.

Eye Of The Phoenix : Secrets Of The Dollar Bill#

[rickoff]

U.S. Court Skeptical of Fed Push for Bailout Secrecy

From a MoneyNews.com article of today:

A federal appeals court on Monday appeared skeptical of U.S. Federal Reserve efforts to prevent the press and the public from learning the names of participants in emergency lending programs designed to support and bail out the financial system.

The central bank has argued that disclosure would cause "competitive and reputational harm" to participants, perhaps triggering bank runs, and impede its ability "to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis."

"Manage" is the key word here. The central bank (the Federal Reserve) has "managed" every financial disaster from start to finish. They create (engineer) the situations that lead to financial downturns, and then swoop in to "save the day" by implementing "corrective" measures. They are right to worry about public disclosure of their dirty dealings, and it probably would cause runs on the big banks. I can envision people lining up outside bank doors with pitchforks in hand.

Bloomberg News and News Corp.'s Fox News Network LLC had sought details of the Fed's actions under the federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, which requires government agencies to make documents available to the public.

Bloomberg brought its case to force the Fed to release records of actions it took to shore up the financial system starting in late 2007, including the March 2008 sale of Bear Stearns Cos. to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Emergency lending programs have more than doubled the Fed's balance sheet to an amount in excess of $2.2 trillion, especially following the Sept. 15, 2008, collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Bloomberg had won its case in Manhattan district court in August. Chief District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that the Fed failed to show that disclosing names could lead to a "downward spiral of financial instability."

Fox News, in contrast, lost its case in the same court the prior month. Judge Alvin Hellerstein said "the national economy is not so out of danger, and the frailty of banks so different now ... as to make the board's concern academic."

An appeals court panel typically takes several weeks or months to rule. Its ruling may be appealed to the full court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Clearing House Association LLC, an industry-owned group of banks, supported the Fed's position.

This group includes the ABN Amro Bank NV unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.

Notice the names of the banking members above, who are denouncing any form of Fed disclosure. These are the world's wealthiest banks, owned by the world's wealthiest family groups. Of course they don't want disclosure!

[aljhoa]

Over 2065 Years Old Wining Ideology

"These are the world's wealthiest banks, owned by the world's wealthiest family groups."

Warning from Ancient Rome

"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall." Cicero 55B.C.

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Rick;
From an article in The Daily Reckoning on 1/12/10:



The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: With so much finger-pointing going on in the crumbling western economies, it's a wonder nobody has lost an eye. The blunders of the past ten years are plenty, but according to Casey Research's Jeff Clark, one bamboozle stands out among all others as...

The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade
By Jeff Clark
Stowe, Vermont

Enron? Bear Stearns? Bernie Madoff? They're all big stories about big losses and have hurt a lot of employees and investors. But none come close to getting my vote for the decade's most dastardly deception...

First came Enron, with $65.5 billion in assets, going belly-up and becoming the largest bankruptcy in US history at that time. The stock went from a high of $84.63 in December 2000 to a whopping 26¢ one year later. And what had we been told by the media? Fortune magazine dubbed Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.

Next came WorldCom filing for bankruptcy in 2002, their assets of $103.9 billion dwarfing Enron's. Tyco, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems...also made headlines for their acts of fraud and mismanagement.

A few years later, Bear Stearns set us all up for the Big Meltdown of 2008. It was B.S. (no, I mean Bear Stearns) that pioneered the asset- backed securities markets, and we all know how that turned out. Later we learned that as losses mounted in 2006 and 2007, the company was actually adding to its exposure of mortgage-backed assets. With net equity of $11.1 billion supporting $395 billion in assets, Bear leveraged itself up to an astonishing 35-to-1.

And during it all, Bear Stearns was recognized as the "Most Admired" securities firm in a survey by Fortune magazine (there's that Lower Manhattan tabloid darling again). Frequent sightings of company executives on country club fairways assured the public that all was well. And CEO Alan Schwartz told us there was "no liquidity crisis for the firm" and insisted he "had the numbers to back it up." His company was sold four days later to JPMorgan Chase at $10 per share, a 92% loss from its $133.20 high.

Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank, was next and still today holds the title as the largest bankruptcy in US history. L.B. succumbed to 2007's Word of the Year, "subprime," and its $600 billion in assets all went poof! In just the first half of 2008, before the meltdown, Lehman's stock slid 73%.

And what did CEO Dick Fuld tell us in April of that year? "I will hurt the shorts, and that is my goal." He must have been referring to the attire of his tennis club buddies, because the ones who actually got hurt were numerous other banks, money market funds, institutions, hedge funds, REITs, brokers, private and public trusts, foundations, government agencies, foreign governments, employees, and investors.

Moving on to the largest US government bailout recipient by far, AIG's troubles spawned my favorite placard of the decade: seen outside their Manhattan offices stood a sign that simply read, "Jump!" Maybe its creator heard what I did from AIG's financial products head Joseph Cassano: "It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions."

Oops!

Topping off our list of the infamous debacles of the decade is Bernie Made-off (er, Madoff), who scammed $65 billion over 20 years from unsuspecting institutions and wealthy investors...

By now you are probably wondering... What's bigger than all these debacles? He's covered the major frauds and scams of the past decade - what could possibly be left?

To quote my favorite sleuth, Hercule Poirot, "When all the facts are laid before me, the solution becomes inevitable."

Here are a few clues...

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on July 16, 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "adequately capitalized" and "in no danger of failing." Then-Secretary Treasurer Henry Paulson declared on August 10, 2008, "We have no plans to insert money into either of those two institutions."

- Both Fannie and Freddie were nationalized 28 days later, on September 8, 2008.

Ben Bernanke claimed on February 28, 2008, "Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don't expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks..." Henry Paulson added on July 20, 2008, that "It's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation."

- Since the recession started in December, 2008, 144 banks have failed.

Paulson informed us on April 20, 2007, that "All the signs I look at show the housing market is at or near the bottom."

- The number of foreclosures skyrocketed shortly thereafter and will now any day surpass those during the Great Depression.

Ben Bernanke announced on June 20, 2007, that "[The sub prime fallout] will not affect the economy overall."

- Less than one year later, the stock market crashed, losing 53% of its value, and is still down 25% despite one of the biggest bounces in history.

Those in charge of our country's finances not only failed to see the crises developing and then bungled the handling of the recovery, they've deliberately misled us about what they're doing to our currency. In spite of emphatic promises, flowery speeches, pat-on-the- back assurances, and continual reassurances, here's what they've actually done to the dollar:


Since September 1, 2008, the monetary base has ballooned from $908 billion to $2.0 trillion. The current monetary base is now equal to bailing out General Motors 23 times.
Bailout funds in 2008 and 2009 total $8.1 trillion. That's almost 78 WorldComs. It's over 123 Enrons.
US debt has risen sharply, from $6.2 trillion in 2002 to $12.1 trillion today. That's over $39,000 per citizen.
David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office from 1998-2008, warned that the US is on the hook for $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Independent analysts peg the figure at near twice that. Whatever the number, it is incomprehensibly large. The only way we will meet these liabilities is to print the money and inflate them away.
We're bailing out corporations that should fail, making financial promises we can't keep, and adding layers of debt we can't possibly repay. And the real killer is, if we don't have the cash, we just print it. It is, by any reasonable account, the "blunder that will plunder" the next several generations. It is changing America permanently, and the problems will persist long after you and I are laid to rest.

Bottom line: after all the bailout programs, housing initiatives, rescue efforts, stimulus schemes, bank takeovers, wars, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous other promises, the biggest financial deception of the decade is what the US government is doing to the dollar. Nothing else even comes close.

This reckless activity has spooked our foreign creditors, weakened our global standing, diluted our currency, is punishing savers and retirees, and ultimately sets us up for a level of inflation this country has never seen before.

Yet, what is the guardian of our economy and money telling us now?

"Will the Federal Reserve's actions to combat the crisis lead to higher inflation down the road? The answer is no; the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping inflation low and will be able to do so. In the near term, elevated unemployment and stable inflation expectations should keep inflation subdued, and indeed, inflation could move lower from here." (Ben Bernanke, December 7, 2009).

This is pure rubbish. If inflation could be controlled by just thinking stable inflation thoughts, then Ben should be able to grow a full head of hair by just thinking scalp follicle thoughts. This is so ridiculous, it's insulting.

Government actions make a mockery of their words; what they say and what they do are diametrically opposed. It's clear that inflation is not a question of "if," but "when."

Any level-headed individual has to conclude that there will be a steady - and likely accelerating - decline in the dollar's purchasing power. It's inevitable.

The great masses don't quite understand it yet, but they will. There will be no escape from the cold, hard slap in the face citizens will receive when a high level of inflation arrives. And when it does, it will make a mockery of any opposing viewpoint.


Regards,

Jeff Clark
for The Daily Reckoning


There is no end to their chicanery.

Al

[ANTIQUER]

Al;

Good job! Just shows how far back the threat of corruption/control by the ruling elite/bankers goes.

Al

[rickoff]

Bumper stickers

[rickoff]

Hi Rick;
From an article in The Daily Reckoning on 1/12/10:
Bottom line: after all the bailout programs, housing initiatives, rescue efforts, stimulus schemes, bank takeovers, wars, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous other promises, the biggest financial deception of the decade is what the US government is doing to the dollar. Nothing else even comes close.

Thanks for sharing this article, Al. It's right on the mark, and gathers together many of the things we have been talking about in this thread.
Speaking of bailouts, here's a short definition you may enjoy:




Rick

[h20power]

Very nice article, thanks for sharing it with us. Well, we now have 21-1/2 months until the full out crash of the dollar. Time to get to planning an escape route in long over due, so get to it.


h2opower.

[Mozaar]

Basically we need to just dump it....

Taxes getting on your nerves? You fundamentally have to understand that what is being taxed is your incomes in monetary terms.
You do not want to be taxed, dont accept money as a payment.

[rickoff]

Taxes getting on your nerves? You fundamentally have to understand that what is being taxed is your incomes in monetary terms. You do not want to be taxed, dont accept money as a payment.

Much easier said than done. Without money in hand, what will you do after you load up your shopping cart with groceries and arrive at the checkout? What will you do when your car requires a gas refill? What will you do when you require any other goods and services that can only be purchased with money? And if you don't accept money as payment for goods or services that you have supplied to others, then what would you accept as an alternative to money? To think that you could possibly barter trade for everything you need is not realistically possible. Try it next time you go shopping, and see how far you get with the cashier or store owner.