The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

The Billionaire
Made public by John Spritzler
February 21, 2013

Chapter 1: Know That You Ought To Rule Over the People
Chapter 2: The People Are Your Enemy
Chapter 3: Turn the People Against the People
1. Wage War
2. Divide and rule the people along race lines
3. Divide the people along cultural lines
4. Make the People Compete Against Each Other
5. Cause Mass Migration (But Pretend to Oppose It)
6. Turn the People Against Themselves
Chapter 4: Make Sure The People Follow Your Goals, Not Theirs
Chapter 5: Lower the People's Expectations
Chapter 6: Use Fake Democracy
Chapter 7: Teach the People to Be Nonviolent
Chapter 8: Assassinate Dangerous Leaders
Chapter 9: A Problem that Remains Unsolved
There remains a problem that you must learn to solve without help from this Owner's Manual. The problem is this: How can billionaires defeat a revolutionary movement in which the rank-and-file members all exibit the warning signs that, in a leader, would mark him or her as very dangerous? Killing its leaders would accomplish little. Your forebears never solved this problem. Fortunately the problem has never arisen yet (or else you would probably not be a billionaire today) but it could happen. Everything in this Manual is about how to prevent it from happening, but the savvier ordinary people become, the less effective all of the strategems in this Manual are. This is a serious problem! You are on your own. Good luck in solving it.
The Billionaire
l

Lindsey Williams - Secrets Of The Elite Video - Mar. 2012 - 3 DVD Set - YouTube


Al

[rickoff]

Early this morning Rand Paul finished a 13 hour filibuster of Barry's Brennan nomination as CIA director. Of the 100 senators who sit on Capitol Hill, Rand was the lone wolf when it came to standing up against the nomination. Rand used much of the 13 hours in talking about the unconstitutional and tyrannical planned use of drone aircraft, within the United States, against American citizens. Rand blasted Eric Holder for his remarks in a letter sent to Rand on March 4th, which said, "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." Rand made it clear that he was not satisfied with Holder's response, because he had asked Holder for a clear statement that would rule out the possibility that drones would ever be used against American citizens on US soil. Rand said, "The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

This filibuster, of course, was a tactic Rand used to enable him to get the word out, and on the record, concerning the Obama administration's plans to use drone aircraft to spy on the public and target citizens for assassination who have been placed on a "hit list," thus denying Americans their constitutional due process rights. Rand correctly noted that leaving such options open to possibility of being used would put Barry in the position of judge, jury, and executioner, which is neither allowed by the Constitution, nor can be thought of as acceptable under any circumstances. At the very beginning of his speech, Rand said, "I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." You can watch Rand's opening statements here.

In reporting on Rand's 13 hour speech, TV newscasters made light of what this was all about, and painted Rand as simply attempting to delay a Senate vote on Brennan's appointment. Newscasters showed video clips of Rand speaking, but played at high speed to make it look humorous, and also showed clips of Rand drinking water and eating a messy Snickers candy bar which had partially melted. Very little of what Rand actually said was reported, and what was reported was countered by statements such as Holder having said that a situation where such a strike may occur were "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur." Yeah, right, like we should believe that.

[dutchdivco]

Actually

According to the newscasts I saw, (NBC nitely news, and ) several other Senators DID 'assist' RP with his filibuster. They showed a brief clip of the 'new' hispanic Senator from Texas (can't recall his name).

And, they DID show him making the statements you quoted, word for word, and not speeded up. So, he DID get SOME coverage, and it didn't SEEM 'derogatory' to me. I suspect this may be because the 'libertarian' view DOES 'cut across' the so-called 'idiological divide'.

I have found many times, I can 'find common ground' with Liberals, by talking about 'libertarian' ideas/principles. Next time your talking to a Liberal, give it a try, Rick. I think you will find much to agree on.

Granted, 'they' (liberals) are completely 'wacked out' when it comes to promoting the 'naany state', etc. (at least you and I think they are 'wacked out', and they think the same about us, LOL) but, based on my experience, you WILL find Liberals that are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, and that are very upset with o'bummer for his expansion of Presidential powers.

Just as I am very 'upset' with many of the things Bush did. Libertariansism really IS a 3rd way of looking at politics, and there are Libertarian Democrats/Liberals, just as there are Libertarian Repubs/Conservatives.

I THINK that is part of what 'explains' the 'Reagan Democrats'; he appealed to there Libertarian 'leanings', and THAT is probably the way Repubs SHOULD go, rather than the way they are thinkng they need to 'rebrand'.

And I'm hoping Rand MAY be the one to clearly articulate a conservative/libertarian message, that will have the reagan appeal. But, as with Goldwater and Reagan, (and Rands Dad) the 'party regulars' will do everything they can to marginalise him, so I'm not THAT optimistic,... Jim

[rickoff]

According to the newscasts I saw, (NBC nitely news, and ) several other Senators DID 'assist' RP with his filibuster. They showed a brief clip of the 'new' hispanic Senator from Texas (can't recall his name).

I believe that would be Ted Cruz. Mike Lee was the first person to assist Rand, and Ted Cruz stayed until the end, reading supportive 'tweets' to his colleague, among other contributions. It is said that CSPAN did carry the live broadcast, but I missed that. Several other Senators were willing to at least go on record as standing with Rand Paul, including Senators Barasso, Chambliss, Cornyn, Flake, Johnson, McConnell, Moran, Rubio, Scott, Thune, and Toomey, although apparently none of these thought the issue was important enough to stay through the whole process. So Rand really was pretty much a 'lone wolf' when it came to the actual speaking. I was surprised, though, that even Democrat Senator Wyden was willing to put aside political party loyalty to consider what is best for all Americans, and spoke in support of the questions Senator Paul was asking of the White House. Wyden is a libertarian minded Democrat, which no doubt explains his support. The thing that is troubling, though, is that this is such a small group of Senators. How can the rest distance themselves from these moral, ethical, and legal questions without showing that they have absolutely no regard for the American public or the Constitution? In fact, the entire group of establishment Republican Senators was in absence, with several of them choosing instead to attend a dinner party put on by Barry Soetoro. Disgusting, don't you think?

[rickoff]

I don't know if any others have read about this, but it appears that a breed of giant mosquitos, known as "gallinippers" is expected to invade central Florida this summer. These are said to be up to 20 times the size of a normal mosquito, with a body about the size of a quarter, and are said to be "notoriously aggressive," packing a very strong bite. Here's a University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences photo, taken by Marisol Amador, comparing one of these gallinippers to a regular mosquito:


Apparently these mega mosquitos occur after tropical storms, and there were high numbers of these voracious bloodsuckers last year after tropical storm Debbie caused extensive flooding in many parts of Florida. About the only good news is that so far these mosquitoes are not known to be disease carriers. I wouldn't put it past some government research facilities, though, to be experimenting with possible uses for these giants to strike fear among the public, perhaps developing their use as a biological military weapon to unleash a deadly virus against an "enemy."

[rickoff]

Just another example of a worthwhile citizen action

We have often repeated here what the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution says about gun rights. Today I was reading the Maine Constitution, and found that its wording on this subject is even more compelling:

Article 1, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution is crystal clear: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

As clear as this is, there are some Maine legislators who think it is acceptable for them to be scheming ways to introduce intrusive regulations and unconstitutional prohibitions on gun ownership. What part of the word "never" do these morons not understand? To let these errant legislators know that Mainers won't stand for such shenanigans, a gun rights activist rally sponsored by the Maine Gun Rights Coalition will be held at high noon on Saturday, March 9th, and I'm sure this rally will lead to other citizen actions.

I suggest looking at your own state constitution to see what it says about your gun rights, and taking similar action if your state legislators are going astray.

[aljhoa]

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law."2 In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."3 Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."

When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists. If a suspect is taken into custody by law enforcement, a duty to protect -be it at the scene, during transport, or at the jail-exists.7 The majority of courts require a person to be in physical custody of police before that person has a special relationship with police.

Although police generally have no constitutional duty to protect private persons from third parties, there may be such a duty if a special relationship exists or if the state increased or created the danger to the harmed person.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article


Al

[gene gene]

Hi Rick,
A list of all states constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions can be found here. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

In looking at the wording for Maine, and it is as you stated. I noticed some states such as Maryland and Minnesota have NO PROVISION !!!

I very much like Maine's wording (NEVER!!!) It is strong and would be very hard to debate.

Our provision here in Wisconsin reads.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art 1, Sec 25 (enacted 1998)
[self-defense right protected, State V. Fisher, 714 N.2d495 (Wisc. 2006).]

I am wishing good luck to you Mainers on Sat. and I hope it peacefully accomplishes all that your coalition is striving for. I would like to see some media coverage.

Best Regards, Gene

I think I forgot to insert the link. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

[dutchdivco]

Rick Post 4054

Wydens responce to RP's fillibuster, is an example of what I was posting about, earlier. There are a LOT of Democrats, and even LIBERALS, who have libertarian 'leanings'; next time you encounter what you THINK is a 'hard-core' liberal, 'feel them out' on Libertarian issues, and I think you will be SURPRISED at the areas where you can find agreement!

The Liberal press (again, NBC news) actaully pointed out the difference between the way 'mainstream' repubs and 'tea partiers' responded very differently to the fillibuster. THEY were pointing it out, to chortle about the 'split' in the Repubs, cause they LIKE the 'fact' that such a 'split' is seen as 'weakening' the Repubs, and therby 'strengthening Dems, and they LIKE that, of coarse!

But, there RIGHT in that this is an example of the SPLIT; the statements 'on the floor' made by Lindsay Graham and McCain were particularly reprehensible, as was their 'schmoosing' with B.O.

One hopes this 'split' will ultimately STRENGTHEN the party, by boosting the influence of the Libertarian aspect of the Repub party, as Reagan did, rather than having the barstuds that pushed Romoney, and torpedoed 'anyone else', and earlier torpedoed Goldwater, remain in 'control' of the party! Like they've done such an excellent job, so far!!!!

I HOPE that Rand Paul will be the next 'white hope', and will lead the party back to the right KIND of Victory, rather than someone Like Christie, Jeb Bush, etc. who, even if they win in 2016, will be ALMOST as bad as having a Democrat win! Jim

[DrStiffler]

Early this morning Rand Paul finished a 13 hour filibuster of Barry's Brennan nomination as CIA director. Of the 100 senators who sit on Capitol Hill, Rand was the lone wolf when it came to standing up against the nomination. Rand used much of the 13 hours in talking about the unconstitutional and tyrannical planned use of drone aircraft, within the United States, against American citizens. Rand blasted Eric Holder for his remarks in a letter sent to Rand on March 4th, which said, "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." Rand made it clear that he was not satisfied with Holder's response, because he had asked Holder for a clear statement that would rule out the possibility that drones would ever be used against American citizens on US soil. Rand said, "The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."

This filibuster, of course, was a tactic Rand used to enable him to get the word out, and on the record, concerning the Obama administration's plans to use drone aircraft to spy on the public and target citizens for assassination who have been placed on a "hit list," thus denying Americans their constitutional due process rights. Rand correctly noted that leaving such options open to possibility of being used would put Barry in the position of judge, jury, and executioner, which is neither allowed by the Constitution, nor can be thought of as acceptable under any circumstances. At the very beginning of his speech, Rand said, "I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." You can watch Rand's opening statements here.

In reporting on Rand's 13 hour speech, TV newscasters made light of what this was all about, and painted Rand as simply attempting to delay a Senate vote on Brennan's appointment. Newscasters showed video clips of Rand speaking, but played at high speed to make it look humorous, and also showed clips of Rand drinking water and eating a messy Snickers candy bar which had partially melted. Very little of what Rand actually said was reported, and what was reported was countered by statements such as Holder having said that a situation where such a strike may occur were "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur." Yeah, right, like we should believe that.

BS. Paul was just grandstanding for his own positioning. Who would accept such a stupid answer as given by the AG? Who makes the decision on what allows the King to make a decision as stated.

Here is what the Dictionary says;

Definition of COMBATANT

: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat
— combatant adjective


Definition of COMBAT

1: a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2: conflict, controversy
3: active fighting in a war : action <casualties suffered in combat>

So what makes it of concern from Barry? Silly grandstanding only.

A man and wife involved in a heated disagreement;

Combatants in Combat.....

[dutchdivco]

Hey Doc

How you doin? And yeah, he's broken so many 'promises', whats one more?

If you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up!

If you like your Dr., and your health insurance, nothing will change for you (under O'bummer care).

And HONEST! If your a 'law abiding gon owner', you have nOTHING to fear., from us! So,.....WHY don't I BELIEVE him?

Maybe cause he's a,....Politician, and they ALL lie??? Jim

[rickoff]

Hi Rick,
A list of all states constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions can be found here. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

In looking at the wording for Maine, and it is as you stated. I noticed some states such as Maryland and Minnesota have NO PROVISION !!!

I very much like Maine's wording (NEVER!!!) It is strong and would be very hard to debate.

Our provision here in Wisconsin reads.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art 1, Sec 25 (enacted 1998)
[self-defense right protected, State V. Fisher, 714 N.2d495 (Wisc. 2006).]

I am wishing good luck to you Mainers on Sat. and I hope it peacefully accomplishes all that your coalition is striving for. I would like to see some media coverage.

Best Regards, Gene

Tanks for the list link, Gene. That makes it a lot easier for people to see what their state constitution says about gun rights. Yes, the "NEVER" wording in Maine's constitution would be tough to argue against. Let's look at the wording again:

Article I, Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. - Maine Constitution, in current form

Notice that it says "Every citizen" of Maine has this unquestionable right. Therefore, it is fully understood that this right has nothing to do with an organized or unorganized militia. Furthermore, the first two sections of Article I make it very clear that the right guaranteed by Section 16 can be used to defend life and liberty, protect property, or abolish a tyrannical government in favor of new government when safety and happiness is dependent on such change:

Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Section 2. Power inherent in people. All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.

Both Section 1 and 2 are worded the same as in the 1820 Maine Constitution, but Section 16 was originally worded differently:

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

The change in wording from the original version was brought about in 1987 when the legislature sought to clarify this right and referred the proposed change to a ballot question. The public voted favorably on the proposed change in the following manner:

• Yes: 216,013
• No: 159,226

In this instance, the change of wording was a wise thing to do, as it was far more in line with what the Founding Fathers intended than the original wording was. "Common defence" could be misconstrued to mean that arms could only be kept and borne by a citizen in the instance when it is necessary to defend the public against a common enemy or threat, and did not expressly fortify one's individual right, although Section 1 and 2 did offer some clarification.

While individual gun rights here in Maine are now adequately protected by the wording of Section 16, it is likely that some legislators will from time to time attempt to place a new revision on the ballot that would weaken the wording or change the meaning entirely. That's why it is especially important at the present time to partake in rallies aimed at getting the word out and unifying people against any such gun control initiatives.

I myself had planned to attend the rally being held today, but threw my lower back out of whack a couple of days ago while working on my tractor, and can barely move about today. I'll keep a close watch on what happens, though, and will report back on this event.

[rickoff]

Who would accept such a stupid answer as given by the AG? Who makes the decision on what allows the King to make a decision as stated.

Here is what the Dictionary says;

Definition of COMBATANT

: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat
— combatant adjective


Definition of COMBAT

1: a fight or contest between individuals or groups
2: conflict, controversy
3: active fighting in a war : action <casualties suffered in combat>

So what makes it of concern from Barry? Silly grandstanding only.

A man and wife involved in a heated disagreement;

Combatants in Combat.....

I'd be quick to agree that Holder's response leaves a lot to be desired, and was not exactly a victory for Rand Paul. It was not the clear cut response that Rand was seeking, which should have been that drone strikes would never be authorized in the USA against an American citizen
without that citizen's due process rights having been granted and exercised as guaranteed by the Constitution's Bill of Rights. For Holder to say such a strike would not be carried out against a non-combatant citizen offers little reassurance. What about those who would combat tyranny and oppression by planning and attending peaceful rallies, or distributing written words that call attention to such tyranny and oppression? Holder made no specific reference to armed combatants, or to insurrection.

I'd still say, though, that Rand Paul did the right thing in standing up against an out of control government and bringing the drone issue to the forefront, and I commend him for that effort. It's good to know that there is someone in Washington who listens to our concerns and is willing to go to bat for us. There aren't many in D.C. who would do that.

[aljhoa]

How you doin? And yeah, he's broken so many 'promises', whats one more?

If you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up!

If you like your Dr., and your health insurance, nothing will change for you (under O'bummer care).

And HONEST! If your a 'law abiding gon owner', you have nOTHING to fear., from us! So,.....WHY don't I BELIEVE him?

Maybe cause he's a,....Politician, and they ALL lie??? Jim

Dr. B.Carson's Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama Present - YouTube

Obama Reacts to Dr. Benjamin Carson's Damning Speech - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Curious, Rick

Given the wording, how does Maine handle possesion of firearms by convicted felons? Are they not still citisens? And are they then not 'entitled' (?) given the wording, to own firearms for th reasons stated?

Oh, and hopiing your back gets better, been there, had that! Jim