The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

In November 2009, an expanded panel of 9 judges of the Israeli Supreme Court ruled
that privately run prisons are unconstitutional, finding that for the State
to transfer authority for managing the prison to a private contractor
whose aim is monetary profit would severely violate
the prisoners' basic human rights to dignity and freedom.
Private prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Al

[rickoff]

In November 2009, an expanded panel of 9 judges of the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that privately run prisons are unconstitutional, finding that for the State to transfer authority for managing the prison to a private contractor whose aim is monetary profit would severely violate
the prisoners' basic human rights to dignity and freedom.
Private prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Al

That's a strange ruling, Al. Since when did prisoners have the right to freedom? They lost that right when they were convicted and incarcerated. If they retained the right to freedom, they would all have to be released immediately upon claiming that right. Dignity -yes, but freedom? No!

[Bizzy]

That's a strange ruling, Al. Since when did prisoners have the right to freedom? They lost that right when they were convicted and incarcerated. If they retained the right to freedom, they would all have to be released immediately upon claiming that right. Dignity -yes, but freedom? No!

Hi Rick
It has been a while since I have had a chance to participate on the forum, my wife and I have been busy with planting and wine making etc....


As a former guard I can tell you that the prisioners have more rights than we as free people do.
They have rights to food, clothing, shelter, rights to TV rights to phone rights to legal access and the legal system and medical treatment. If you think about it we as citizens don't have those rights even though food clothing and shelter are basic needs of every human. They are things we can buy if and when needed. But for an inmate they are rights that these things MUST be given to them. Of course on the flip side their freedom is limited and if they break even the smallest rule we would be right there to "take control" of the situation.

Bizzy

[rickoff]

Hi Rick
It has been a while since I have had a chance to participate on the forum, my wife and I have been busy with planting and wine making etc....

As a former guard I can tell you that the prisoners have more rights than we as free people do.

Bizzy

Hi Bizzy, glad to see you back again. Like you, I have been intensely busy the past few months settling in here on the new property. There's so much that I want to do here, but never enough hours in the day, and it does make reading and writing posts for this forum thread difficult.

I know just what you mean about the prison inmates. Here in Maine we had a state prison in Thomaston where the inmates operated a store open to the public, and sold novelty items which they had crafted - things like paintings, furniture, wood carvings, ship models, and so on. I went in the store once to see what was being offered, and there were some really nice pieces that had obviously been crafted by some very talented people. I suspect that most of these persons learned that artistry while in prison, having a lot of time on their hands, since they could easily have made a good living on the outside had they possessed that ability before going to prison. Anyways, it didn't take long for most prisoners to catch on to the fact that they would be allowed to keep the profits made from their sales, and use that to buy just about anything they wanted. It turned into quite a scandal when a reporter visited the prison facilities and found several inmates living a luxurious lifestyle, with their cells richly adorned with all the comforts of home and then some. When the article ran in newspapers and magazines, these inmates became known as Thomaston's "novelty kings." It was found that some inmates were earning more than $30,000 a year from their sales at the prison store (and that was in 1979), and of course since all of their basic needs were being met while in prison, at taxpayer expense, a prisoner could simply bank most of those earning to be used when they were eventually set free. Nice game, huh? After the story broke, it was feared that many men would commit felonies in the hopes of being caught and sent to Thomaston. Not long afterwards, the Thomaston facility was closed, and the inmates were moved to a new maximum security unit where these activities were not allowed.

The idea of allowing the crafting and sale of goods in a prison store operated by inmates was no doubt a good one when it was thought of, as it would allow inmates to be productive and develop talents that would be useful and remunerative upon their release, but allowing inmates to keep all the profits was the big mistake. The plan should have been that the inmates could keep all profits above and beyond what it cost the state to provide facility and services per inmate. That would have been a win-win scenario for the inmates as well as the taxpayers. And why shouldn't the inmates
be obligated to pay the costs of their confinement, rather than the taxpayers?

[Bizzy]

Hi Bizzy, glad to see you back again. Like you, I have been intensely busy the past few months settling in here on the new property. There's so much that I want to do here, but never enough hours in the day, and it does make reading and writing posts for this forum thread difficult.

I know just what you mean about the prison inmates. Here in Maine we had a state prison in Thomaston where the inmates operated a store open to the public, and sold novelty items which they had crafted - things like paintings, furniture, wood carvings, ship models, and so on. I went in the store once to see what was being offered, and there were some really nice pieces that had obviously been crafted by some very talented people. I suspect that most of these persons learned that artistry while in prison, having a lot of time on their hands, since they could easily have made a good living on the outside had they possessed that ability before going to prison. Anyways, it didn't take long for most prisoners to catch on to the fact that they would be allowed to keep the profits made from their sales, and use that to buy just about anything they wanted. It turned into quite a scandal when a reporter visited the prison facilities and found several inmates living a luxurious lifestyle, with their cells richly adorned with all the comforts of home and then some. When the article ran in newspapers and magazines, these inmates became known as Thomaston's "novelty kings." It was found that some inmates were earning more than $30,000 a year from their sales at the prison store (and that was in 1979), and of course since all of their basic needs were being met while in prison, at taxpayer expense, a prisoner could simply bank most of those earning to be used when they were eventually set free. Nice game, huh? After the story broke, it was feared that many men would commit felonies in the hopes of being caught and sent to Thomaston. Not long afterwards, the Thomaston facility was closed, and the inmates were moved to a new maximum security unit where these activities were not allowed.

The idea of allowing the crafting and sale of goods in a prison store operated by inmates was no doubt a good one when it was thought of, as it would allow inmates to be productive and develop talents that would be useful and remunerative upon their release, but allowing inmates to keep all the profits was the big mistake. The plan should have been that the inmates could keep all profits above and beyond what it cost the state to provide facility and services per inmate. That would have been a win-win scenario for the inmates as well as the taxpayers. And why shouldn't the inmates
be obligated to pay the costs of their confinement, rather than the taxpayers?

Hi Rick
How is your progress on your new place? The wife and I are looking for a different place further out in the country where the taxes are cheaper. Although i would rather move her to Switzerland but that is for another time

We have a program in Erie County whereas if an inmate is in jail for either DWI or childsupport and the court allows them out for work release they must pay $75 a day for the room and an extra $25 if they eat there.

When I was a CO we had over 120 on work release so that really helped cover costs.

I also understand completely about people committing crimes just to get three hots and cot. There was always several dozen homeless guys who would rob a store in the fall just to hang out in the jail for the winter.

I do however think that if SOME inmates were allowed to use thier talents and perhaps sell some of their goods they could actually get on a better path in life. As it stands now our jails are nothing more than revolving doors IN-OUT-IN AGAIN

Would love to see more pictures of your place and your work.


Thanks
Bizzy

[rickoff]

Hi Rick
How is your progress on your new place? The wife and I are looking for a different place further out in the country where the taxes are cheaper.

Would love to see more pictures of your place and your work.

Thanks
Bizzy

Progress has been slow here, because there is so much to be done, and also because I have 3 properties to contend with - the new property in the countryside, my previous home 110 miles to the southwest, and my summer cottage 120 miles to the east. Once I can unload the expense and worry of maintaining my previous home things will get much easier. I've also been quite busy practicing, rehearsing, and recording with a Celtic/Irish/Maritime musical group that I play with, and that demands countless hours of my time.

I did manage to prune some old apple trees in front of my home early this spring, and am hoping they will become productive. I know there are more apple trees on my 20 acre woodlot too, but I'm sure they won't get much sun. I'd like to canvass my woodlot and determine exactly what types of trees I have, and how many. I know there is pine, yellow birch, white birch, cedar, oak, and maple, and a lot of tall timber, but I'd like to see if I have enough maple trees to start a maple syrup business. A gallon of the syrup goes for a lot of bucks these days. Then too, I need to get busy cutting firewood for the winter months. The big trick is going to be in gaining access to the trees I will prefer to cut, so that I can haul a wagon behind my tractor when I harvest those trees. To gain access, I have to get through some heavy brush growth and also cross my stream.

I have noticed that nearly every afternoon there is always a strong breeze here, so it would seem ideal for a wind powered generator. Before I get involved in that project, though, I'd like to work on a water wheel to tap the power of my stream. In that regard, I have been looking for the best place to set up a water wheel along the 1600 foot run of the stream through my property. The brush overgrowth is really thick, especially at the edge of the woods, and makes access and exploration quite difficult, but I have managed to cut a swath down to the stream where the stream reaches its widest section (about 60 feet or so), and that does seem like it might be a logical candidate for water wheel placement, as the stream narrows to about 10 feet just prior to that. If I go down there following a substantial rainfall, the water flow is impressive, and I'm sure that if I could harness and save all its force for just one day at that rate, I could probably supply all the power needed to operate my homestead for a year. Of course that isn't realistically possible for me to do, but there definitely is a lot of power to be had for the taking. I had originally hoped that I could generate more power each month than I would use, and sell it to the electric utility. Maine did pass a law several years ago that utilities had to purchase excess power from in-state suppliers, but I found out that things have evidently changed. Now the utility only has to purchase power from commercial suppliers who can produce megawatts. They still are required to give consumers credit for power sent back into the grid through a meter, but are only required to credit the amount of kwh that equals any usage during the month in question. Therefore, if I used 100hwh, and produced 300 kwh, the utility would be getting 200kwh of free power they could sell to consumers, while I'd get nothing but a cost reduction on my 100kwh usage. In addition to that, I'd still have to pay the monthly "transmission" charge on my bill (it's broken into transmission and supply portions) just to stay connected to the grid. Sucks, huh?

I will start taking some photos and video soon to show some things I have in mind. Thanks for your interest.

Rick

[Nadda]

I do however think that if SOME inmates were allowed to use thier talents and perhaps sell some of their goods they could actually get on a better path in life. As it stands now our jails are nothing more than revolving doors IN-OUT-IN AGAIN

I read U.S. has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners. Land of the free, not so much lol.

I dont have a problem with big prison sentences for serious violent crimes, but our system would probably put you behind bars for a year if you spit gum at someone. I think many crimes carry huge time simply so most will plea bargain down, but those who dont and lose the case get really hammered. Serving 10 years wont rehabilitate someone anymore than serving 5 years will, for non violent crimes anyway. At what point do we stop caring about rehabilitation and instead care more about punishing someone.

If you cant serve the time dont do the crime...Well how much time is enough time? Apparently its more the merrier here, which is unfortunate for those who can be rehabilitated.


[edit] - Just read this story on yahoo
---------------------------------------------

"The whole thing has almost been surreal," Bob Migliaccio, Matthew's father, told the AP. "We keep thinking it's just going to go away, and then a week and a half ago a sheriff shows up at my door to serve my son the papers.

"It's absurd to expect every 11-year-old to throw the ball on target. Everyone knows you've got to watch out. You assume some risk when you go out to a field. That's just part of being at a game."

Apparently a woman was hit in the face with a baseball due to an errant throw at a kids baseball game. Woman is now suing the kid for 150k. Why play baseball when you might get hit with a lawsuit. Land of the free, not so much.

[aljhoa]

Hundreds of reports have appeared in the mainstream media in the past couple of days hyping the danger of a new bioengineered bird flu virus which is transmissible between humans as the Globalists try to condition humanity to accept a new pandemic emergency and a mass vaccination campaign with a toxic pandemic jab.

Yet again, the people of the world are facing the monolithic threat of a mass vaccination campaign with a pandemic vaccine now proven beyond a doubt to cause harm.

The mainstream media and the false flag alternative media led by Alex Jones are once more hyping the new super virus as a killer and downplaying the vaccine danger.
Jane Burgermeister - pandemic update 25 June 2012 - YouTube

Al

[aljhoa]

That's a strange ruling, Al. Since when did prisoners have the right to freedom? They lost that right when they were convicted and incarcerated. If they retained the right to freedom, they would all have to be released immediately upon claiming that right. Dignity -yes, but freedom? No!

Psychopath Test

Read the question, come up with an answer and then click through for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads.

A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a man who she did not know. She thought he was ‘amazing’. She believed him to be her dream partner so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him.

A few days later she killed her sister.

Question: What was her motive for killing her sister?

[Give this some thought before you answer. Click through to read the answer]

This is VERY interesting!


Answer: 5h3 vv45 h0p1n6 7h3 6uy vv0u1d 4pp34r 47 7h3 fun3r4l 4641n.
If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test by a famous American psychologist used to test if one has the same mentality as a killer.
Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly.
If you didn’t answer the question correctly, good for you.
The Psychopath Test | All Of The Crap They Send Me


Al

[rickoff]

RE: SCOTUS decision on Arizona law

The decision handed down yesterday by the corporation U.S. Supreme Court overturned much of Arizona's 1070B law dealing with illegal immigration as being "unconstitutional." In suing Arizona, Barry's regime claimed that only the federal "government" has constitutional authority when it comes to matters of immigration. But just where in the Constitution is that stated or implied? First of all, the word "immigration" cannot be found in the Constitution, so where does the idea that the federal "government" has sole authority in immigration matters come from? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is what is used to claim such authority, but let's examine that Section, which only states that, "The Congress shall have Power....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." And to that extent, the final passage in Section 8 states that Congress has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Now all of that makes perfect sense, and naturalization has always been properly recognized and executed as a function of the federal system. Those wishing to gain status as a naturalized US citizen apply at a federally operated office, and are later granted such status in a federal court if they are deemed to be of good character and have followed the rules set by Congress.

Arizona's 1070B law never attempted to interfere with, or take control of, the established naturalization process. And nowhere does the Constitution state that the federal "government" has the sole responsibility and authority to deal with those who violate and bypass the rules for becoming a citizen, and come here illegally. Every state has the inherent right to protect its own borders, and its citizens, against invasions by those who would illegally enter their state. Most states have laws that give homeowners and business owners the right to defend their property against an uninvited invasion, and even gives such owners the right to use lethal force against such invaders if they perceive the invasion to be a threat to their safety or well-being. The citizens of Arizona rightly feel threatened by lawless invaders from Mexico who traffic in drugs, carry automatic weapons, and who have shown that they will not hesitate to kill US citizens and law enforcement officers who stand in their way. The federal authorities have not taken adequate steps to protect Arizona from these invaders, so Arizona finally said enough was enough, and passed their own protective statutes. In improperly striking down much of Arizona's 1070B law, the SCOTUS decision did allow one part to remain in effect - the right of law enforcement officers to question a person's legal status if that person is questioned or arrested in relation to an illegal offense, such as a traffic violation, robbery, domestic violence, etc. Barry didn't like that, so immediately after the SCOTUS decision he instructed ICE officials in Washington to notify Arizona that ICE agents no longer will respond to calls for assistance from Arizona state or local law enforcement officers regarding illegal immigrants unless the person in question is a convicted criminal, was caught in the act of crossing the border illegally, or is known to be a repeat illegal border crosser. In other words, federal authorities will basically do nothing to assist Arizona officials in transporting, detaining, or deporting illegal invaders from their state, and in this manner will trump the only part of Arizona's law that remains.

[Bizzy]

The decision handed down yesterday by the corporation U.S. Supreme Court overturned much of Arizona's 1070B law dealing with illegal immigration as being "unconstitutional." In suing Arizona, Barry's regime claimed that only the federal "government" has constitutional authority when it comes to matters of immigration. But just where in the Constitution is that stated or implied? First of all, the word "immigration" cannot be found in the Constitution, so where does the idea that the federal "government" has sole authority in immigration matters come from? Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is what is used to claim such authority, but let's examine that Section, which only states that, "The Congress shall have Power....To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." And to that extent, the final passage in Section 8 states that Congress has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Now all of that makes perfect sense, and naturalization has always been properly recognized and executed as a function of the federal system. Those wishing to gain status as a naturalized US citizen apply at a federally operated office, and are later granted such status in a federal court if they are deemed to be of good character and have followed the rules set by Congress.

Arizona's 1070B law never attempted to interfere with, or take control of, the established naturalization process. And nowhere does the Constitution state that the federal "government" has the sole responsibility and authority to deal with those who violate and bypass the rules for becoming a citizen, and come here illegally. Every state has the inherent right to protect its own borders, and its citizens, against invasions by those who would illegally enter their state. Most states have laws that give homeowners and business owners the right to defend their property against an uninvited invasion, and even gives such owners the right to use lethal force against such invaders if they perceive the invasion to be a threat to their safety or well-being. The citizens of Arizona rightly feel threatened by lawless invaders from Mexico who traffic in drugs, carry automatic weapons, and who have shown that they will not hesitate to kill US citizens and law enforcement officers who stand in their way. The federal authorities have not taken adequate steps to protect Arizona from these invaders, so Arizona finally said enough was enough, and passed their own protective statutes. In improperly striking down much of Arizona's 1070B law, the SCOTUS decision did allow one part to remain in effect - the right of law enforcement officers to question a person's legal status if that person is questioned or arrested in relation to an illegal offense, such as a traffic violation, robbery, domestic violence, etc. Barry didn't like that, so immediately after the SCOTUS decision he instructed ICE officials in Washington to notify Arizona that ICE agents no longer will respond to calls for assistance from Arizona state or local law enforcement officers regarding illegal immigrants unless the person in question is a convicted criminal, was caught in the act of crossing the border illegally, or is known to be a repeat illegal border crosser. In other words, federal authorities will basically do nothing to assist Arizona officials in transporting, detaining, or deporting illegal invaders from their state, and in this manner will trump the only part of Arizona's law that remains.

Hi Rick
Like you I was also very surprised by thier decision on imigration. The Arizona law does not try to supersede or go around the federal law simply assists the feds in enforcing. This was a great shock and it has me concerned about thier ruling on Obamacare this Thursday...Switzerland is looking better each day

It also shows how much of a childish attitude Komrad Obama has ...when he didn't get his way he took his toys away from Arizona


I have said it before on this forum so i will repeat it ...when this nut job in the white house looses in Novemebr he will not step down, he will declaire martial law and have the election made null and void that is when this country will be ripped apart worse than the civil war...........
Bizzy

[dutchdivco]

Rick

You MAY have heard this before, I may have3 even posted it before, but;
I was in a similar headspace, to where you are, when I was deep into a project, restoring my milktruck; I looked at it every day, and there just seemed SO MUCH to do, that I felt a little 'overwhelmed'.
Then a friend said "How do you eat an ELEPHANT?" ,....answer is "ONE BITE AT A TIME!" And, it 'worked'. At nite, I would review what I would 'eat' the next day. The next morning, I would literally keep my head down, and focus on the one part I was 'eating' that day.After several months, I lifted up my head, and was amased at how much of the 'elephant' was gone!

Anyway, I too have been wondering how you are doing with your project. I am making steady progress on mine. I am just finishing up on making one of the 2 trailers i bought 'habitable', so my wife and I can move out of where we are, and into the trailer, in a trailer park here in the city. Will be making that move within a month. Then, I will be re-doing the OTHER trailer, so the 2 of them can connect up, and making both self sufficient, with solar panels, etc.

All this is so we can move them onto a piece of property, out in 'the toolies'; we've already picked an area, have found several 'possibles', and have the $ set aside.
All from 'eating' the elephant, one bite at a time. Anyway, good to 'hear' from Bizzy, again, thought maybe you got too much into drinking your own wine, LOL! And, good to hear you ARE making progress, Rick. Sounds like you've got quite a resource in that sustainable forest of yours! Jim

[Bizzy]

You MAY have heard this before, I may have3 even posted it before, but;
I was in a similar headspace, to where you are, when I was deep into a project, restoring my milktruck; I looked at it every day, and there just seemed SO MUCH to do, that I felt a little 'overwhelmed'.
Then a friend said "How do you eat an ELEPHANT?" ,....answer is "ONE BITE AT A TIME!" And, it 'worked'. At nite, I would review what I would 'eat' the next day. The next morning, I would literally keep my head down, and focus on the one part I was 'eating' that day.After several months, I lifted up my head, and was amased at how much of the 'elephant' was gone!

Anyway, I too have been wondering how you are doing with your project. I am making steady progress on mine. I am just finishing up on making one of the 2 trailers i bought 'habitable', so my wife and I can move out of where we are, and into the trailer, in a trailer park here in the city. Will be making that move within a month. Then, I will be re-doing the OTHER trailer, so the 2 of them can connect up, and making both self sufficient, with solar panels, etc.

All this is so we can move them onto a piece of property, out in 'the toolies'; we've already picked an area, have found several 'possibles', and have the $ set aside.
All from 'eating' the elephant, one bite at a time. Anyway, good to 'hear' from Bizzy, again, thought maybe you got too much into drinking your own wine, LOL! And, good to hear you ARE making progress, Rick. Sounds like you've got quite a resource in that sustainable forest of yours! Jim

Hi Jim,
I like your parable.
Actually the wife and I have cut back a "little" on our wine drinking for our diets. She lost 48 pounds and I 55 so far But don't worry we are still enjoying our adult beverages
We still have lots of garden work to do and I need to cut a bunch of firewood for the winter Although I just made some huge progress on my Bedini Machine so I warned her the firewood and gardening may have to be postponed. she looked like this ... yikes That is the reason Mr Tesla never had a Mrs Tesla


Getting back on track for this thread you are right about the elephants. With all of the distruction Komrad Obama did during his 4 year reign it will take along to time to fix and we will ALL be eating elephants to help fix it.
If he is re-elected I am serioyusly trying to convince my wife to move to Switzerland where it will be safer. Because this country would never survive 8 years of that .... well I won;t use those words here. Seriously if he is re-elected run!!!
If he loses things will get better although I still don't thnk he'll step down and the malitias will have to help
Bizzy

[aljhoa]

In other words, federal authorities will basically do nothing to assist Arizona officials in transporting, detaining, or deporting illegal invaders from their state, and in this manner will trump the only part of Arizona's law that remains.

How Can We Stop the Mexican Drug Insanity When Banks and Much of the Establishment Profit Big Time from Illegal Drugs? | Drugs | AlterNet


Al

[dutchdivco]

Immigration 'twists'

Nobodies commented on it, so I guess i will. The media made a big deal of O'bummers 'executive order', or Homeland securities policy decision to NOT deport the 'dream act' kids, and to grant them 2 year renewable work permits.

A lot to do, about nothing. Living in Arizona, it had already been made clear to us that Customs was not going to 'concentrate' their enforcement efforts on 'law abiding' illegals, regardless of their age or how they came to be here, instead using 'selective enforcement' to concentrate on 'the criminal elements'.

Now, since the Fed is doing very little to prevent employers from HIRING illegal's, granting these 'dream act' kids work permits doesn't really MEAN much. And as for 'choosing' not to deport them, in reality they are only a small part of a much bigger group that the FED is 'choosing' not to deport.
Its like saying "I'm NOT going to eat this big bowl of oatmeal!" And then taking up a spoonful of oatmeal, from the bowl, and saying "And I'm specifically NOT going to eat THIS!" It means NOTHING, and was so blatantly political! No one else. (mainstreammedia,etc.) seems to have 'called O'bummer out on this, so I just thought I would point it out.

I really wonder if nothing is being done about illegal immigration, because its seen as a 'stopgap' measure, to help address the 'shortfall' of Social (In)security as a result of 'Baby-boomers', etc. MOST illegals ARE paying into the system,after all, and more people paying in, right now, is what the system 'needs', (at least, thats how 'they' would look at it.)

"Flush twice, its a long way to D.C.!" Jim