The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Finally, a legal challenge to those who would certify Barry's eligibility.

Judical Watch founder and attorney, Larry Klayman, has officially advised Democrat National Committee lawyer Robert Bauer that any Democrat Party or state elections officials certifying Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 election could become the targets of election-fraud charges. Klayman's notice to Bauer was accompanied by evidence showing that Barry's purported documentation had been faked.

“There is therefore no longer any state or national official in the Democratic Party who can escape legal responsibility for ignoring the proof herein provided, and a plea of ignorance of the facts will no longer be possible, especially under the informed legal counsel provided by you (and your state counterparts), Mr. Bauer,” Klayman wrote.

Klayman also advised Bauer, “At the same time that you are receiving this legal analysis, each DNC Executive Committee member – as well as each state Democratic Party chair, secretary of state, and state attorney general – is receiving a certified letter advising them of the legal jeopardy in which they place themselves should they proceed – in light of the facts herein presented – to certify to state or national election officials that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally and legally qualified Democratic candidate for president of the United States.”

[rickoff]

New movie - Red September

Red September is a movie that tells the true story of the 2008 Wall Street bailouts, showing how a very few principled members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, fought a courageous though losing battle against this unconstitutional bailout. Those in Congress who fought it risked great loss and a number of them were politically "punished" afterwards.

Many voices in media have championed the Bailout and its alleged success. These claims are simply not true to economic reality or common sense. The Bailout, along with other extraordinary government measures, prevented the ruin of some financial firms at the expense of the American citizen. Inflating commodity and food prices at home and around the world, America's stagnant real estate market, the European bank crisis, the massive increase of unregulated derivatives over the last four years, and the inability for American small businesses to make long term financial forecasts even four years after this intervention are only a few of the many bad outcomes from this violent intrusion into the American economy.

Many who fought this bill knew what was at stake. As one congressman told us, "Without the Bailout, there would have been no Stimulus, no takeover of Chrysler or GM, the extent of the nationalizing of Fannie and Freddie, etc. This was absolutely a pivotal time that laid the foundation for all of this." Presently, the entire American economy is on a kind of morbid life support. America is like a person who has run out of food and instead of working to find more is now eating herself. - Michael Collender, writer/director of RED SEPTEMBER

Go here to read more.

[rickoff]

In a July 19, 2012 appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Joel Gilbert (director of the movie Dreams from my Real Father) called out all of the mainstream media in attendance for their failure to report fairly and truthfully regarding Barry's background and upbringing as a Marxist, and for abandoning the Journalists Creed in favor of suppressing the factual information about Barry that the public should be made aware of.

See a video of Gilbert's address to the National Press Club here.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Don't know how you feel about PBS's 'Frontline', but they SEEM to present a fairly unbiased view, and quite often conclude with a kind of 'pox on BOTH your houses' view, i.e blaming both parties. Anyway, they did a 4 part series on the 'Financial Crises', the Bailout, etc.

The striking thing, and i've seen several others point out the same thing; NOTHING has been done to correct the underlieing things which caused or lead to the 'crash' of '08. Derivatives are STILL unregulated, the banks are still an intermingling of 'Commercial' and investment, i.e. no re-instituting of Glass Steagul, etc.

So, NOTHIING was really 'learned' from the experience, and we are poised, at any time, to have it happen again. And 'everyone' seems to be in 'denial' about it! Literally, that kind of psychological denial, that 'river in Egypt'.

NO ONE, (or at least, very few) are even talking about it, and NO ONE is DOING anything about it! Its as if this huge, planet sized meteor is hurtling towards us, its so big, and its gotten so close, that we don't even need a telescope to see it; all we have to do is look up! But instead, we keep our heads down, and fight over mundane things that mean NOTHING, even as this meteor hurtles closer; and the difference (I THINK) between whats happening and a meteor, is that while their really is very little we could do about a meteor, ther IS (agin, I THINK) something we COULD do about this, but we're not! NO serious attempt to re-institute glass Steagul, (seperating INVESTMENT banks, which can 'gamble', from Commercial banks, which are FDIC insured), NO serious attempts to reign in, or regulate in any major way, the packaging and selling of derivatives, etc.

Maybe there really IS nothing that can be done; perhaps with globalisation and multi-nationals, etc. its simply NOT possible to restrict these kind of activities. Or, maybe its not POLITICALLY possible; no 'political will', and the banks simply have too much 'power'? Anyway, while i appreciate your keeping us apprised of the lates on the ongoing exploits of barry's birth certificate, (and i'm curious what the DNC's responce to this latest move will be, (probably silence, as what CAN they say?) curious as to your thoughts.Jim

[aljhoa]

"I have seen firsthand that
being president doesn't change who you are --
it reveals who you are,"
Mrs. Obama said.
First lady seeks to reignite flame for president - CNN.com

Those receiving benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program numbered 46.37 million, the government said in a report that hit just days ahead of the monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which the Labor Department releases Friday.
Record 46 Million Americans on Food Stamps - Yahoo! Finance

Al

[rickoff]

"I have seen firsthand that
being president doesn't change who you are --
it reveals who you are," Mrs. Obama said.

That line stuck out at me like a sore thumb too. Yes indeed, we know a heck of a lot more about Barry now than we did in 2008, as so much has been revealed and brought to light about this usurping impostor and his faked documents.

No doubt Michelle did not mean what she said in the way that we heard it, but it was one of very few things she said that was not an outright lie. Earlier in her speech she told such a whopper of a lie that I'm surprised her nose didn't grow 4 or 5 inches longer. Here's what she said:

[Barry] was still the guy who'd picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by through a hole in the passenger side door…he was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he'd found in a dumpster, and whose only pair of decent shoes was half a size too small........You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions.....

Michelle obviously intended to portray a picture of poverty to her audience, many of whom could be easily duped into believing that she and Barry grew up in poverty like they did, and were therefore kindred spirits. And of course that was pure BS. Barry was working for a law firm when he and Michelle met. When he lived in Hawaii, Barry went to Punahou school, the top private school for Hawaii's elite. It had swimming pools, tennis courts, and even photo studios. Barry and Michelle both attended elite schools. Michelle went to Whitney Young, a public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class. And both attended ivy league colleges before earning law degrees. Barry never had to wear shoes that were too small, or go dumpster diving for a piece of furniture that had been junked by someone else. Anyone who would believe that is, IMHO, too incompetent to vote, and yet many of Barry's devoted followers will suck it up and swallow it without so much as a thought, just as they believed that his birth certificate was real, and that he is eligible to serve as POTUS.

[rickoff]

Don't know how you feel about PBS's 'Frontline', but they SEEM to present a fairly unbiased view, and quite often conclude with a kind of 'pox on BOTH your houses' view, i.e blaming both parties. Anyway, they did a 4 part series on the 'Financial Crises', the Bailout, etc.

The striking thing, and i've seen several others point out the same thing; NOTHING has been done to correct the underlieing things which caused or lead to the 'crash' of '08. Derivatives are STILL unregulated, the banks are still an intermingling of 'Commercial' and investment, i.e. no re-instituting of Glass Steagul, etc........ curious as to your thoughts.Jim

PBS gets a large part of their operating revenue from public donations, which would tend to make one think that they should remain unbiased in their reporting. Of course they also get huge donations from elitist private endowment funds, and they are going to try pretty hard not to lose that influx by reporting anything that would make those elitists look bad. The remainder of their operating revenue comes from "government" grants, and there have been many calls to defund PBS because of obviously biased reporting. I won't cite examples herein, as I'm sure you can easily find some using a search engine. So while PBS may give the appearance that they are doing some fair investigative reporting on this or other issues, we know darned well that there's a lot they are leaving out and wouldn't dare touch with a ten foot pole.

You are quite right in that nothing has been done to correct the situation that led to the 2008 crash, and it would seem that Congress has learned nothing from the experience. But in fact Congress has learned that if they could get away with this once, without major repercussions, then they can probably do it again. Public opinion was dead set against the bailouts by a huge margin, but Congress didn't care and went ahead with them regardless. Those in Congress are supposed to represent the will of their constituents, so it didn't make sense to go up against what their constituents wanted. Unless, of course, one understands that those in Congress are not there to represent their constituency, but rather are there to represent the interests of the big buck contributors who helped get and keep them in office. And the top contributors to both parties are always the banksters and Wall Street elite.

So of course nothing will change if we rely upon our Corporation US Senators and Representatives to do what is right by us. That's precisely why we need to ensure that a constitutional original jurisdiction government is elected and seated, and that Corporation US is brought back under their control. Only then can we move ahead with the changes that will restore liberty and reason to our Republic.

[yoyo]

National Public Radio

THE REPUBLICANS CROSS THE RUBICON ~ Paul Craig Roberts


Does anyone remember when National Public Radio was an independent voice?

During the 1980s NPR was continually on the case of the Reagan administration. NPR certainly had a Democratic slant, and a lot of its reporting about the Reagan administration was one-sided. Yet, NPR was an independent voice, and it sometimes got things correct.

In the 21st century that voice has disappeared, which was the intention of the George W. Bush regime. Bush put a Republican woman in charge who made it clear to NPR producers and show hosts that the federal part of their funding was at risk.

Money often over-rules principle, and when corporations added their really big money NPR collapsed. Today the local stations still pretend to be funded by listeners, but if you have noticed, as I have, there are now a large number of corporate advertisements, disguised in the traditional terms “with support from . . .” If you are not listening to classical music, you are listening to corporate advertisements.

Today the entire “mainstream media” is closed to truth-tellers. The US media is Washington’s propaganda ministry. The US media has only one function–to lie for Washington.

[Mad Scientist]

The US media has only one function–to lie for Washington. [/I]

That’s true and speaking of lying. As we know Obama and the MSM have been less then truthful about his birth certificate and thus his eligibility to hold the office.
The constitution clearly holds a candidate for president to a higher standard, then for other offices, by stating he must be a natural born citizen and our first(?) justice of the Supreme Court defined that as meaning the candidate and his parents.

So whether Berry was born in Hawaii or not does matter because we know that his father was not a natural born citizen.

Now guess what happens when we look into O’Romney’s family history? Well surprise, surprise apparently we have the same problem.
Could this be why the republican elite have not overly eager in pressing this issue?

[rickoff]

That’s true and speaking of lying. As we know Obama and the MSM have been less then truthful about his birth certificate and thus his eligibility to hold the office.
The constitution clearly holds a candidate for president to a higher standard, then for other offices, by stating he must be a natural born citizen and our first(?) justice of the Supreme Court defined that as meaning the candidate and his parents.

So whether Berry was born in Hawaii or not does matter because we know that his father was not a natural born citizen.

Now guess what happens when we look into O’Romney’s family history? Well surprise, surprise apparently we have the same problem.
Could this be why the republican elite have not overly eager in pressing this issue?

Hi MS,

You are on the right track, and most of what you say is correct, with the exception of the following:

• The first chief justice of the Supreme Court was John Jay, chosen by then President George Washington. It was Jay who earlier wrote to George Washington, when Washington was the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, citing his concern that in drafting the Constitution a provision should be made requiring the President and Commander in Chief to be a natural born citizen, saying "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Jay did not go on to state what would qualify a person as a natural born citizen, as he knew that GW already understood the meaning, since GW was known to be an avid reader of The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, § 212 - Of the citizens and natives, Vattel wrote: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
  

So Jay never stated what the qualifications were for a person to be a natural born citizen, though both he and George Washington, and others, correctly understood those qualifications. The bold and underlined text in the above quote is mine, to accentuate the most important aspects. It should be noted that "birther" debunkers correctly state that the English translation of The Law of Nations that was available to John Jay and George Washington, before the drafting of the Constitution, did not state the words "natural born citizen," and those words first appeared in an English translation made in 1797, after the Constitution was finalized. What those debunkers fail to acknowledge, though, is that the original French writing by Vattel says essentially the same thing. The passage referred to, in French, reads, “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens,” and the English translation of this reads, “The naturals, or indigenous, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” So this is what George Washington would have understood. Can anyone logically conclude that what Vattel referred to in this passage is not a "natural born citizen?" I think not.

• The only statement ever made by a Supreme Court justice regarding the definition of a "natural born citizen" comes from the Minor vs Happersett case of 1875, in which chief justice Waite wrote, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

• Note that the bold and underlined text above (my doing) clearly states a correct understanding of natural born citizen,but does not require that the natural born citizen's parents be natural born citizens themselves. It only requires the parents to both be citizens of the country at the time of the birth of their offspring. So it matters not that Barry's father was not a natural born citizen of the USA, but it certainly does disqualify Barry as a NBC since his father was never a citizen of the USA.

You are quite right that it really doesn't matter if Barry was born in Hawaii or not, because even if he was born there he is still not eligible to serve as POTUS. The problem with this understanding, though, is that Democrat scholars (and apparently many Republican ones too) have a different understanding of "natural born citizen," and it would therefore take a new Supreme Court decision to qualify what the framers of the Constitution actually meant by the term "natural born citizen." So far the SCOTUS has refused to take up such a case, but if they did open such a case I think we could quite likely see a travesty of justice occur.

The reason why Barry's fraudulent birth certificate is of importance is that it clearly shows that no one in the Democrat party, and no state election officials or attorney generals, had any way of knowing that Barry was factually eligible to be nominated, placed on state ballots, or to serve as POTUS, and their failure to properly vet him showed total disregard for our Constitution's presidential eligibility requirements. And of course the Congressional vetting of McCain was a total sham, so even if Congress had gone through the motions of a vetting procedure for Barry, which they did not, then it would have been an equal farce.

• Concerning Mitt Romney's questionable status as a natural born citizen, I wrote about this in a January 2012 post. Mitt was born in Utah, but his father George (who once ran for POTUS) was born in Mexico to US parents who had fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution for multiple marriage. Thus, George Romney was definitely not qualified to serve as POTUS as he was not a natural born citizen. What matters in Mitt's case, though, is whether or not George ever became a US citizen before Mitt's birth. George's parents, upon reentering the USA from Mexico would have had to declare Mitt's Mexican birth and file naturalization papers for him. To me, it is doubtful they would have done so because they would have been inviting arrest and prosecution for the multiple marriage offense that they were in violation of. I therefore suspect they would have snuck back into the USA illegally, just as so many illegal aliens have done, and would have avoided doing anything that would have focused attention upon their evasion of US law. George himself may have at some time filed to gain status as a naturalized citizen, but I have seen nothing that proves this, or that his parents filed. Thus, to me the question of Mitt's father's status as a US citizen at the time of Mitt's birth is still an open question that has not, but should have been, properly resolved before the GOP allowed Mitt to be nominated. We should be shown proof of this, and not simply assume that George Romney held legal US citizenship.

[Mad Scientist]

Thank you. That is the clearest description of “natural born” that I’ve seen.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

For what its worth, (which may not be much!) I saw something recently, (perhaps during the RNC convention) (?) in which Romoney was talking about his 'bio'. He stated that his family re-entered the U.S. as 'political refugees' (I THINK he said 'Political', but not sure) anyway, refugees who came 'back' to the U.S. because there was a Civil war in Mexico they were 'fleeing'.
Again, going by memory here, so its a little 'fuzzy', but the implication was clear that they didn't 'sneak' in, but applied for asylum.
I THINK he may have said something about (initally) recieving help/assistance from the Gov't. He seemed to be saying/ or implying they were initially 'poor' when they entered, and relied on the generosity of the U.S., blah blah blah.
Seemed to be trying to discount the image that he was born with a silver spoon, understood the poor, etc.
I realise what a candidate SAYS his bio is, and what the facts show, may well be 2 different things, look at barry. Just saying THIS is what he says, and it SHOULD be easy enough to research.
I DO find it interesting that some of the ealy documents you quoted tend to emphasise the FATHER, rather than the parents. I suspect this is from the common tradition, back then, of the eldest son inheriting, women taking mans last name, etc.
On PBS, I would be the first to agree they can't be blindly trusted to be 'unbiased'. I DOESseem to me that this particular show, 'Frontline' goes a lot more in depth, on an issue, and often ends up pointing fingers at both dems and repubs, kind of 'a pox on BOTH your houses'. They point out the role of Democratic Senators in blocking the efforts of repubs to prevent fannie and Freddie from getting into mortgage backed securities, for example.
Anyway, it is a very informative 4 hour, 4 part series on the 'financial crises', and DOES make it clear there is PLENTY of 'blame' to go around.Jim

[rickoff]

For what its worth, (which may not be much!) I saw something recently, (perhaps during the RNC convention) (?) in which Romoney was talking about his 'bio'. He stated that his family re-entered the U.S. as 'political refugees' (I THINK he said 'Political', but not sure) anyway, refugees who came 'back' to the U.S. because there was a Civil war in Mexico they were 'fleeing'. Again, going by memory here, so its a little 'fuzzy', but the implication was clear that they didn't 'sneak' in, but applied for asylum.

If Mitt is publicly talking about this then of course he will present it to appear in the best light possible. Here are some things you should consider:

1. Mitt did not return to the US with his grandparents, because he was not yet born, so he can't claim to have any personal recollection of how his grandparents or father actually reentered.

2. His father, George Romney, may have told Mitt a story about how he and his parents reentered the USA, but that in itself does not constitute proof.

3. If Mitt can prove that his father George reentered the US legally, through a US Customs and Immigration office, and that the proper documents were filled out and verified, then he should offer that proof to us and not hide it like Barry hides documents. This should be simple if the documents exist.

4. Yes, Mitt's grandparents, and his father George, left Mexico because of danger from the ongoing warring factions of the Mexican Revolution. They had been living in a Mexican Mormon community, which had already been raided by fighters who were most likely looking for supplies. As I mentioned earlier, the Romney family had chosen to escape to Mexico to avoid the effects of prosecution in the US for polygamy. Actually, Mitt's great grandfather Miles Romney (who had 5 wives and fathered 33 children) was prosecuted in 1885 under the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882. This act allowed certain citizenship rights to be stripped of those convicted. It also carried a fine of $500 and/or five years in prison, so it's no wonder that, shortly after prosecution, Miles left for Mexico, taking his large family with him. Mexico at that time had no law against polygamy. You can bet that the government already had made note of the fact that the Romneys had fled, and had a list of names which they distributed to US Customs and other government agencies. And keeping that in mind, it would have been foolhardy for them to go through a US Customs and Immigration office and fill out documents upon reentering the US.

5. Mitt's grandfather (George Romney's father) was Gaskell Romney. He was born in 1871 in St George, Utah, and left the US with his father Miles. Gaskell was actually born on foreign soil, since Utah did not become a state until 1892, and the Romney's were already in Mexico before that event. So how could he have been a US citizen? Likewise, Mitt's grandmother Anna Pratt, was also born in Utah before it became a state and married Gaskell in 1895 in Chihuahua, Mexico. Thus it would appear that her parents had also fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution and persecution for multiple marriages, and that she too had likely not become a US citizen. Where's the proof that Mitt's grandparents ever became US citizens?

5. I don't know much about Mexican law, but it is my understanding that when people immigrated to Mexico and wished to purchase real estate there they were (and perhaps still are) required to first become a Mexican citizen by renouncing their allegiance to the country they came from, since only Mexican citizens could own property there. If this is indeed factual, and it appears to be, then Mitt's grandparents may well have given up their US citizenship before George Romney was born, that is if they ever had that status to begin with (see point #4). What is known as fact is that Gaskell Romney did own land and a home in Mexico, and had lost it when he left Mexico. We know this because he later sued Mexico for the loss of his property and, in 1938, was awarded damages of $9,163, a considerable amount of money in that era. The point is, of course, that Gaskell could not have pursued that legal remedy if he had not owned the Mexican property legally, and only Mexican citizens could legally acquire such property.

So, what are the facts concerning George Romney, and who has the answers? We do know when and where he was born - 1907, in Mexico, and we know his parents were probably not US citizens at the time of George's birth, but we surely cannot determine that George ever became a naturalized US citizen after entering the US in 1912, let alone that he was a US citizen at the time of Mitt's birth. And if he or his wife were not then Mitt, who was born in Michigan in 1947, is no more eligible than Barry to serve as POTUS.

This should give you a few things to think about, and hopefully someone will do some further research into the matter. It's bad enough that Barry is not eligible, but an atrocity that we may once again face a situation as in the previous election, where neither major party candidate was constitutionally eligible.

[aljhoa]

8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(I)


8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | LII / Legal Information Institute


Al

[aljhoa]

This video reveals an astonishingly easy way to stop massacres in mere seconds. It requires:

* No police or 911.
* No taxpayer expense.
* Can be deployed anywhere.
* Begins working in as little as five seconds.
* Protects innocent lives
How to stop a massacre (PG-13 edition with improved sound effects) - YouTube

Al