The American Ruling Class

[5150]

The latest example is Oregon, where the state had hired Oracle to develop and implement their 'Cover Oregon' website. The cost to Oregon was $134 million, and to this amount the federal "government" contributed another $250 million in grant money for the project. Therefore, the total cost was a staggering $384 million for a website that never functioned and never was able to enroll a single person. .

this along with the cost of the Federal Website of what 800 Million? not counting all the other money spent on this entire ACA disaster could have much easily been given to the people of the USA.

With all the money spent on the ACA would be the same as giving each American 2 million US dollars and telling them to buy their own healthcare coverage or on anything else they wanted but that if they didn't get coverage then they would not get treatment. Of course there would still be a large sector of people who would drink or waste the money and still end up not covered and would blame everyone but themselves for their problems..

You just know there were people lining their pockets with this wasted money and greed once again won. So freaken sad

[aljhoa]

I fully concur with your postings on psychopaths. I DO think that that they are a genetic mutation which has formed a 'sub-species'; and their #'s, as a % of the total population, is rising dramatically.
And the factors contributing to this rise are that, in 'modern' civilisation, being a sociopath/psychopath gives them advantages, as in survival of the fittest.
Put another way, our modern civilisation encorages psychpathic behavior. THATS something to think about.

They think differently to you therefore must be a genetic mutation?? What makes you think that you are not the mutant?

The apparent "survival of the fittest" as it is used here "independently" is undefinable by itself. The psychopaths are successful relative to the lameness of the rest.

If one goes out hunting for survival, and another sits on his ass and does nothing, then it's not survival of the fittest at all. It's oblivion for the lazy.
__________________
"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

They're inbred "super intelligent" criminals and <mutant> is "reserved" for superheroes.


In comic books published by Marvel Comics, a mutant is an organism (usually otherwise human) who possesses a genetic trait called an X-gene that allows the mutant to naturally develop superhuman powers and abilities. Human mutants are considered to be of the subspecies Homo sapiens superior, an evolutionary progeny of Homo sapiens, and are considered the next stage in human evolution, though whether this is true or not is a subject of much debate.

Unlike Marvel's mutates which are characters who develop their powers only after exposure to outside stimuli or energies (such as Hulk, Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and Absorbing Man), mutants are born with the genetic potential to possess their powers, although the powers typically manifest at puberty.

Like mutates, the powers of the vast majority of Marvel's human superheroes are the result of genetic manipulation by the Celestials millions of years in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_(Marvel_Comics)

Al

[aljhoa]

Well Rick this was a posting of mine earlier in the thread .....

So..., what is the game?

The Crims - The life of a criminal - Free Online RPG

Lana Del Rey - National Anthem - 21,784,773 views YouTube

Lana Del Rey - Criminals Run The World Lyrics HD - YouTube


Al

[aljhoa]

So..., what is the game?

Lana Del Rey - National Anthem - 21,784,773 views YouTube

Lana Del Rey - Criminals Run The World Lyrics HD - YouTube

Communist Jews coin the word "racism"

The term "racists" was first coined in print by Leon Trotsky,✡ a communist Jew and mass murderer, in a 1930 piece called the History of the Russian Revolution (translated into English in 1932).[2] He coined the term in a paragraph where he is mocking what he called "Slavophilism", which Trotsky claims is the "messianism of backwardness".[1] In the same breath, the paragraph on the so-called racists also speaks of "Teutonic jackasses",[1] thus from the very beginning the term came from the mouth of a communist Jew in a thoroughly Europhobic context. He continues on in a 1933 piece about German socialism, speaking of "racism".[3] The -ism itself was popularised largely due to Magnus Hirschfeld,✡ a co-racialist of Trotsky and Sexual Bolshevist agitator in Berlin who promoted miscegenation in the 1934 work Racism.[4]

Al

[aljhoa]

Lana Del Rey - National Anthem - 21,925,187 views YouTube

Endogamy
Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, rejecting others on such a basis as being unsuitable for marriage or for other close personal relationships.

Certain groups—such as Orthodox Jews—have practised endogamy as an inherent part of their religious beliefs and traditions.
Endogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-miscegenation laws
Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 Loving v. Virginia by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex.
Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscegenation
Laws banning "race-mixing" were enforced in certain U.S. states from 1691[10] until 1967, in Nazi Germany (the Nuremberg Laws) from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the early part of the Apartheid era (1949–1985). All these laws primarily banned marriage between persons of different racially or ethnically defined groups, which was termed "amalgamation" or "miscegenation" in the U.S. The laws in Nazi Germany and many of the U.S. states, as well as South Africa, also banned sexual relations between such individuals.
Miscegenation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The health consequences of race mixing
The health consequences of race mixing among living organisms could be neutral, beneficial or harmful. This issue has been difficult to address in humans, but data from random, population-based studies have started coming in, and here we consider the first such dataset.

Table 2 shows that mixed-race individuals had an across-the-board higher incidence of health and behavior problems;

The general pattern seen in Table 2 is also seen in Table 3, i.e., irrespective of which races are combined, there is an overall increase in health/behavior problems among mixed-race adolescents.

The authors controlled for age, sex, verbal IQ, grade point average, family structure (living with one or both parents), and family education; education can act as a proxy for socioeconomic status, and given an inverse relation between socioeconomic status and obesity in white women, [6] education can also act as a proxy for obesity in the white mothers of the mixed-race adolescents. ...Therefore, one can conclude that the negative health/behavior consequences of race mixing are related to race mixing per se rather than the variables controlled for.

Therefore, to the extent that race mixing may increase the likelihood of non-optimal genetic correlation structures, it may be expected to adversely affect organism-level physiological control, which may very well account for Udry’s data.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/com...f_race_mixing/

Al

[gene gene]

More evidence of 9/11 cover up

9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public by Gaia Edwards As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent an entire month filming: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places … is very disturbing!” He never handed his 29 tapes over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote “El Perseguido” (Persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltaire Network. Voltaire Network | Buenos Aires (Argentina) | 22 June 2009

https://angellucci.wordpress.com/201...-gaia-edwards/

I wonder where his 29 tapes are today,

[rickoff]

Part 1 of a 2 part reply to indio007

Did you miss Section 2 of Article 3?


There is no Federal Common Law
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins - 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

It's pretty unambiguous.

Individual men and women are not a party to the Constitution. The States are the parties.

Sorry if I'm bursting your bubble, but I didn't miss a thing. You are actually misunderstanding what you have read about federal courts and Common Law. Let me explain. First though, your assertion that the States, rather than the People, are a party to the Constitution is fatally flawed, and this should be understood by reading the first three words of the Constitution - "We the People.." It is not, "We the States." The People are the sovereigns and are above the States and the federal government. State and Federal politicians and bureaucrats, although often acting as though they are above the People, in actuality only exist as public servants to serve the People. The People established the Constitution to allow the establishment of a Republican form of government with very limited powers. Those limits are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved instead to the States, and the various State constitutions are clear in stating that the People of those states have the duty and the right to abolish a state government that abuses the powers granted to them by the People, or attempts to legislate powers which they were never given.

In matters of Common Law, the courts all hope that we would be so ignorant as to believe that Common Law no longer is valid in determining case decisions, but this is a false belief by anyone who considers that to be so. In fact, if you go to the official United States Courts website and scroll down to the bottom of the home page, you will notice there is a line there which says, "This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary." Now look at the line above that, find and click on the 'Glossary of Legal Terms' link, and when the glossary page opens up I want you to click the letter 'C' in the alphabet lineup, and then scroll down until you see "Common Law." You will find the following: "Common law The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States, which relies on the articulation of legal principles in a historical succession of judicial decisions." So then the federal courts do acknowledge that Common Law is still in effect. It also correctly states that Common Law court decisions are always based upon prior historic decisions. Such case law decisions were always considered unassailable and standing, unless it could be shown that the cited decision was unconstitutional and thus infringed upon unalienable rights. Even the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. § 1-103.6 for example) states that the Code must be in harmony with the Common Law, as follows: “The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the Code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law …The code cannot read to preclude [prevent or exclude] a Common Law action.”

At the time the Constitution was ratified, and from then until 1938, all state courts (except Louisiana), and all federal courts operated under Common Law jurisdiction and made decisions according to Common Law, which was often simply stated as "Law," or "general Law," even in the Constitution, since Common Law was the "Law" of that time. Statutes and Codes had not yet been written. The Constitution mentions 3 classes of Law, and these are Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. The 7th Amendment to the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states that, "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Even when Code and Statutes came into play, The Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 28 U.S.C. § 725, provided that: "The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."


Common Law, a.k.a. General Law, covered all civil matters, whereas Equity Law was strictly related to business matters and contract disputes. Admiralty/Maritime law also comes into effect with contract disputes, but only when such contracts are international in nature. Today, every court in the United States is operating under Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction, but they won't call their courts what they are. Instead, they refer to their courts as "statutory courts." In statutory courts, all decisions are based upon what is written in legislated statutes, and case law prior to 1938 is tossed aside. Why 1938? Adoption of the 'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure' in 1938 merged Civil Law and Equity Law into a single civil jurisdiction, which on its face appears to be contrary to the 7th Amendment. The People still have the right to initiate common law actions, and to have those actions be heard by a jury in compliance with the Common Law, as you can see is stated in U.C.C. § 1-103.6, but many of the People do not understand this and fail to call this right into play. The courts consider that such failure, by remaining silent and not demanding the right, somehow should be taken as a consent to waiver of those rights, and the court will then proceed under rules of statutory law.

As you may notice, the year 1938, mentioned above, also happens to be the year that the Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins case, which you cited, was decided by the SCOTUS. The case, which had previously been heard in a Federal District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals, was about a Mr Tompkins who was walking in darkness, and towards an approaching freight train, on a foot path parallel to Erie railroad tracks in the State of Pennsylvania. Tompkins was struck in the head and knocked to the ground by what he thought to be a swinging wooden door that was unlatched on a refrigerator car and protruding outwards about two feet or so from the side of the car. Upon falling to the ground, Tompkins' right arm landed on the track and was severed by rail car wheels. Under general Common Law, Tompkins was an injured party who had every right to sue the railroad for damages due to their negligence. Although the incident occurred in Pennsylvania, Tompkins pursued a case against the Erie Railroad in a Federal District Court in southern New York, where the Erie Railroad was incorporated. In cases where a diversity of citizenship applied (meaning that the plaintiff and defendants were citizens of different states), the Federal Court had proper jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Federal District Court held a jury trial, in compliance with Common Law principles, in which damages of $30,000 was awarded to Tompkins, and that award was upheld by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, but challenged by the railroad in an appeal to the US Supreme Court. The railroad contended that Pennsylvania law should govern the case, rather than Federal or New York law, and said that under Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, as was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a Common Law action, Tompkins was considered a trespasser for walking along the railroad's right of way. The railroad held the position that, where Tompkins was a willful trespasser, he must accept responsibility for his injury unless it could be shown that his injury was intended by the railroad. The Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company decision held that, "an alleged permissive way parallel with plaintiff's tracks and on its right-of-way, as distinguished from a permissive crossing over them, is not recognized in this State." and that one who walks on the right-of-way is a trespasser. Tompkins contended that Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company did not apply because he had reached an intersection, where Hughes Road crossed the tracks ["a permissive crossing"], when he was struck. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in their decision against considering the Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company as a valid reason to overturn the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad jury decision had written, "we need not go into this matter since the defendant [the railroad] concedes that the great weight of authority in other states is to the contrary. This concession is fatal to its contention, for upon questions of general law the federal courts are free, in absence of a local statute, to exercise their independent judgment as to what the law is; and it is well settled that the question of the responsibility of a railroad for injuries caused by its servants is one of general law. Baltimore & O. Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 13 S.Ct. 914, 37 L.Ed. 772; Cole v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 43 F.(2d) 953, 71 A.L.R. 1096 (C.C.A. 2), and cases cited therein; Redfield v. New York Cent. R. Co., 83 F.(2d) 62, 65 (C.C. A.8).

[rickoff]

Part 2 of a 2 part reply to indio007

In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court agreed with the Erie railroad that the lower Federal courts had erred in not considering the Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company Pennsylvania common law decision, but also agreed that Tompkins' contention of the decision as not being applicable to his case was worthy of further examination. The SCOTUS remanded the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals to be reconsidered. In its decision, the SCOTUS ruled that, "Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state [meaning in this case the law of the state of Pennsylvania]. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules …" [text bolded by Rick]

What the above SCOTUS decision is stating, in the text which I bolded, is not that Federal courts are not bound to apply Common Law to their decisions. They are unquestionably bound by the 7th Amendment, as quoted earlier, to apply Common Law to any case which is brought under Common Law. The bolded text, above, is easily misconstrued when taken out of context. What is actually stated therein is that Congress, which writes Federal law and rules, has no power to write their own Common Law or to hold such laws as being superior to state Common Law. The SCOTUS, and other Federal courts, may only overturn state law that violates the Constitution. It also means that Congress has no power to declare any rules that would govern substantive law. Substantive law is the statutory, or written law, that defines rights and duties, such as crimes and punishments (in the criminal law), and civil rights and responsibilities in civil law. The reason why the Federal government cannot write their own Common Law is because the Federal Government has no distinct sovereignty. In the United States of America, the People are the sovereigns, not the Federal or State governments. The SCOTUS ruled that Federal courts, in cases absent an issue which appears to violate the Constitution, must base their decision in regards to state law, whether that law happens to be state Common Law decisions, or state statutory law (legislated state law).

Under case law decisions involving similar cases to the Erie v. Tompkins case, it was clear that Tompkins should prevail. What the SCOTUS did in this case was to toss out the 96 years of previously ruling case law which had stood between 1842 and 1938. Instead of deciding the case on the merits of Tompkins position, under the Civil Law doctrines, they heard the case under the context of simply deciding whether or not the prior established and long upheld doctrine (as resulting from the Swift v. Tyson case, in particular) should be overruled. In the opening statement regarding the case, the court wrote that, "The question for decision is whether the oft-challenged doctrine of Swift v. Tyson shall now be disapproved."

In the Swift v. Tyson case of 1842, the Supreme Court had held that, in the absence of a state statutory or constitutional provision, federal courts sitting in diversity of citizenship jurisdiction should not apply a state court's common law decisions, but rather they should resort to making decisions based upon their own interpretation of general law. The idea behind this was that applying what the court believed to be broad and well established general law, rather than simply accepting a narrowly defined single state's decision as authoritative, this would result in more fairness to the parties involved.

In Erie v. Tompkins, the SCOTUS ruled that the Swift v. Tyson decision had been incorrect, and that all state law, whether based upon state statutes or the common law of a state, should be the last word in determining a Federal case decision unless such decision would be unconstitutional.

[5150]

^^^^^^^^^ ‘

Rick,

In layman’s street terms you just handed indio007 his ass. I know that wasn’t your intent but what a great, well thought out response that was polite, professional and very respectful. Your wealth of knowledge and how you present it still amazes me at times and this is just another example of it. Well done!

I also learn a lot just from reading your posts.

Let me say I know you didn’t post your response to “win” or “one-up” him, nor where you even out to hand him his ass, but your very well written and lengthy response clearly resulted in that monumental ass handing.

Great Work but even greater post!

[dutchdivco]

Rick and 5150

5150; although I would use different terminology, I concur; GREAT post.

Not to be 'nit picking', and I KNOW you know this, but;
"Those limits are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved instead to the States, and the various State constitutions are clear in stating that the People of those states have the duty and the right to abolish a state government that abuses the powers granted to them by the People, or attempts to legislate powers which they were never given."

I think its important, at every opportunity, to repeat the words OF the Constitution, "Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government devolve to the states, and the PEOPLE."
It re-iterates your point, that we are a 'soveriegn' people.


"but many of the People do not understand this and fail to call this right into play. The courts consider that such failure, by remaining silent and not demanding the right, somehow should be taken as a consent to waiver of those rights, and the court will then proceed under rules of statutory law."

This is not unlike a patients "informed consent"; Google "Medically Informed Consent"; according to the LAW, a medical practioner MUST, before doing any procedure, explain to the patient ALL of what they are going to do, the reasons why, the possible negative consequences, etc. and THEN ask the patient for permission.
In reality, the practioners regularly fudge the hell out of this; "I'm going to start an I.V. on you, now. Your going to feel a little stick, o.k.?"

IF the patient says "O.K.", or if they don't say anything, it is "ASSUMED" they have consented.

Point being, there is a 'precedent' for this assumption of consent, and its VITAL to understand this, as it is a way to erode your rights, whether its being done by a Court, or a medical practitioner.

So, while you have the 'right' to remain silent, there are some times when you NEED to speak up, as your silence will be assumed to be consent.

This is why it is vitally important, in some of these court cases, to make this objection early and on the record. IF you 'appear', and DON'T at the first oportunity express clearly that you feel the court doesn't have jurisdiction, and why, you are 'assumed' to have granted or recognised the court as having jurisdiction, and so can't later appeal based on the court not having jurisdiction.
Jim

[indio007]

@5150
I find you rah-rah ignorance unamusing for a simple reason.
You can't tell where the real BS lies concerning laws which control you.


The post was 99% bull****.

The entire post is someone's opinion of what the law means.
Those are a dime a dozen.
The only opinion that matters is what the courts say.
They are bound to take precedent as evidence of what the law is.

That being said , what does it matter if the Constitution says "We the People"

"The People" didn't vote on the Constitution.
"The People" didn't ratify it.
"The People" had no say in it's construction.
"The People" have no inherent right to DIRECTLY vote for Federal offices except what the State's permit.

Go LOOK at the Constitution. The part where the signatures are and examine it closely. The State's reps WITNESSED the document. Only G. Washington signed it. There is a HUGE legal difference between signing as a witness and signing unrestricted.

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it.

Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah
14 Ga. 438, 14 Georgia 438 - 1854


Now what is the common law?
from
Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 2
By West Publishing Company






It is true the Federal Courts will follow the common law principles when making determinations of what the law.


Now riddle me this.

Is someones right to a jury trial violated if equity jurisprudence is used with a jury trial instead of 3 Chancellors?

What if the rule of the common law is that equity has jurisdiction?
Did the courts follow the common law or equity?

Equity courts have NEVER been restricted to contracts and business matters.
You might want to look up the doctrine of parens patriae.

The States have legislated bait and switch. As well as, legislated equity based impersonations of the common law.


There are only few types of common law actions. I will not get into the Writs as they are unique in and of themselves but their basis is a common law action.

Common Law Action
A lawsuit governed by the general principles of law derived from court decisions, as opposed to the provisions of statutes. Actions ex contractu, arising out of a breach of contract, and actions ex delicto, based upon the commission of a tort, are common-law actions.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2

There are no common law actions at the Federal level. Congress has passed statutes that mimic common law actions but they are creations of statute.
Example: Federal Tort Claims Act.
Congress has also passed statutory remedies as an alternative to a tort claim.
Example: Deprivation of Right under color of law
The States have done this too.
A good place to look is your State's workers compensation laws

Now you can see there are no Federal common law actions.
Equity and Law merged.
Equity has taken the outward appearance of a common law by having a jury trial among other things.

This is not my opinion. I am parroting what the courts themselves say.

Common law actions must originate at the State level.
This is why their is no Federal Common law



As an aside, the UCC keeps being brought up. The UCC is a codification of the Law Merchant which is also called international private law. Lord Holt of the King's Bench determined that the law merchant IS THE COMMON LAW for the subjects that it encompasses.
i.e. The rule of the common law if that a foreign (foreign doesn't mean a specific other country ) bill of exchange is subject to the law merchant. Therefore enforcing the law merchant on such a bill is the common law.


What was the point of all this anyway?
Where did this conversation start?

A Federal Law suit to compel a body politic State to recognize a common law grand jury.
I can see where the problem lies.
You believe the State is the public.
It is not.
The State is a private political corporation.
It can decide who are citizens. Land owners, white people, people that believe in "a future state of rewards and punishments".
The State can change it at will to anything they like.
The State can also choose to recognize grand juries of it's own choosing within IT's courts.

The Supreme Court of NY are one of the State's PRIVATE courts much like the court of chancery in England.
The court determines rights and duties that are granted or licensed at the pleasure if the King using equity.

What right does some person have to FORCE the body politic state to recognize a grand jury it did not create?

Do you really think the federal gov't is going to find a common law principal that allows a private entity to compel another private entity to so something?
The Federal complaint states that the action is on behalf of the people. the people is the UNORGANIZED public.
Of course they have a right to bring an action on behalf of the public. However the public has no right to compel the State to do this either from WITHIN the State's private court.

NY Supreme Courts they are akin to District Courts in other states. it is not the highest court. They are private courts that adjudicate matters within their dominion.
District Attorney's and police didn't even exist for the first 100 years.
Individuals prosecuted crime in the name of the people.
The State has tricked everyone into think the body politic IS the public at large.

The highest court in NY is New York Court of Appeals. That is where the action should originate. First to gather a people's court. Then to execute the public trust and protect the public's interest in it's lawfully created court.

One last thing I will touch on.
Sovereignty.
Citizens are not sovereigns. Sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. It like calling yourself a master/slave.
I agree the State is not sovereign and can never be. That doesn't mean they are the State is subject to the whims of people either.
Sovereigns don't fill make "applications" for redress , they command those within their dominion.

This is short as I could make this post. I could have added 4 times this amount and not covered everything.

[rickoff]

9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public by Gaia Edwards As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent an entire month filming: “What I saw at certain moments and in certain places … is very disturbing!” He never handed his 29 tapes over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote “El Perseguido” (Persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government’s account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by Voltaire Network. Voltaire Network | Buenos Aires (Argentina) | 22 June 2009

https://angellucci.wordpress.com/201...-gaia-edwards/

I wonder where his 29 tapes are today,

I don't have the answer to that, Gene, but I wouldn't hesitate to bet that they are no longer stored in the "make-up box" which he hid in his home, and later used to transport them to Argentina. It is said that Kurt has released some video footage that he took on 9/11, and here's a link to one such video. Probably the most damning scene of all in this video is the sequence which begins around 1:58 elapsed time as a close-up showing some huge sections from one of the twin towers which are seen impaling another tall building. As the camera zooms out, one can see the extent of the damage that these enormously heavy and flying pieces had caused. Of course the question to be asked is how and why this enormously forceful lateral ejection and impalement occurred during what is "officially" described as a "building collapse."

In a video documentary titled "9/11 Mysteries," which was produced in 2007, there is one scene, shown below, which should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the building collapses were the result of controlled demolitions. This scene is found at 3:11 elapsed time of "9/11 Mysteries: Part V: The Demolition Industry," and is from a still photo. Since Kurt was the only photographer who was allowed unrestricted access to the ground zero sites, I'd say that it is nearly a certainty that the below scene was captured by Kurt. When one realizes what is seen in this photo, it is easy to understand why TPTB are so intent on defaming Kurt and attempting to gain possession of his photos and videos.



Notice the support column at the top center of the photo, above the fireman, which has rather cleanly been sheared off at about a 45 degree or steeper angle. This is a method used in nearly all controlled building demolitions whereby shaped charges are utilized to remove the support of core columns and shift the weight of the structure above that cut so that it slides sidewards to the point where it is no longer supported. Notice also the large "drips" of molten steel which extend a ways down the face of the column, just below the lower end of the cut. This is what one would expect to see resulting from a cut either caused or assisted by a thermite reaction.

It is said that Kurt released several still photos, some of which were shown in a photographic art exhibit in South America, and no doubt some photos of the photos have likely found their way to the Internet, or have been used in certain 9/11 documentaries. There's no doubt that Kurt must have come across a lot more damning and revealing material while filming at ground zero, but instead of wondering what evidence of an "inside job" Kurt may as of yet not released, I think folks should be more focused on the importance of what already has been released.

[indio007]

In science or logic one fact can falsify a theory. The official story has dozens of falsifications.

From the word go the story is BS.

Let's start with the very first so-called witnessed event.
A plane flew into the tower and then exploded.
Jet A doesn't ignite via spark and will not explode at sea level. Period.
I encourage every and anyone to read what's in the link.
It is 30 years of data on the thermodynamic properties of Jet A produced by NASA,FAA,DOT,NTSB,Cal Tech and independent scientists.

Particularly damning is a twelve year study on the properties of Jet fuel done by NASA.

[Danny B]

A bit from the iron mountain report

"The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government. It supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority." It lets societies maintain class distinctions, and ensures the subordination of citizens to the state, run by elites with "residual war powers."

As for policy measures in a world at peace, SSG members stated "as strongly as we can, that the war system cannot responsibly be allowed to disappear," absent a credible alternative to ensure social stability and societal control. Only then should transitional measures be considered."
That brings us to this point;
A Baffling Hearing on Endless War | Politics News | Rolling Stone

" Wars are an economic, political and ecological necessity, important to continue indefinitely." "The war system....has demonstrated its effectiveness since the beginning of recorded history." A viable peace alternative would constitute a giant leap "into the unknown" with its inevitable risks. Genuine peace will be destabilizing until proved otherwise."
The Case For War - The Iron Mountain Report

This maintenance of endless war has bankrupted the country. The rest of the world is tired of our feces. The report claims that State unity can not be maintained absent the threat of war. Power corrupts. The more unity, the higher the concentration of power,,, the more corruption. ALL large States are artificial constructs. ALL large States use sabre rattling to keep their people afraid and under control.
John Wesley;
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war."

"Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions — those institutions we proudly called the American way of life."

"Our swollen budgets constantly have been misrepresented to the public. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

Of course, our cold wars have to blow up into hot wars every now and then or the "threats" would be ignored. China is a very large State with a lot of diversity and internal strife. China and Japan are rattling sabers over a few stupid islands. It remains to be seen if Japan is doing this to manufacture a cause celebre for an American-backed war or just buying time waiting for America to collapse.
Japan is in a horrific energy crunch. China could save them but, America can not. The same is true for Europe. Russia can save them but, America can not. Italy and Germany have made private gas deals with Russia so, it would appear that Europe will align with the player who is not flat broke.

The "endless war" model advocated by the Iron Mountain Report doesn't seem to take into account the cost. The District of Corruption is trying to get the whole world spending on a new cold war. The OLD war model of invasion and conquest is giving way to the new model of economic and cyber warfare.

"Kinetic Warfare vs. Cyberwarfare"
Kinetic Warfare vs. Cyberwarfare

"Tzu during the 6th century BC had already alluded to the non-kinetic approach as the pinnacle of the art of war. 1
However, this essay finds that the latest incarnation of warfare, by making the will of the people the primary target, has shifted to the non-kinetic realm. "
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/pub...de%2045-57.pdf
The mega-State demands great concentrations of power and control. Great concentrations are most susceptible to cyber attack. The emerging cyber wars may bring the death of the centralized State.

[aljhoa]

No Bones About It "The Nail In The Coffin" | BONES | FOX BROADCASTING - YouTube


SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — In the months leading up to Friday night’s rampage, which left six victims and the killer dead and 13 others injured, there were warning signs that Elliot Rodger, a lonely and sexually frustrated college student, harbored violent tendencies.

had been receiving treatment for years from several psychologists and counselors. Last month, the 22-year-old wrote, his mother was so concerned about his well-being after seeing some of his videos on YouTube that she contacted mental-health officials

So they left and never returned.
“He was able to make a very convincing story that there was no problem, that he wasn’t going to hurt himself or anyone else, and he just didn’t meet the criteria for any further intervention at that point,” Brown said.

Simon Astaire, a friend speaking on behalf of the Rodger family, told the Los Angeles Times that minutes before the shooting Friday, Rodger e-mailed his manifesto to his mother and his therapist. His parents frantically raced to Isla Vista, but by the time they arrived, Rodger had killed six people and taken his own life.
In Elliot Rodger, authorities in Calif. saw warning signs but didn&rsquo;t see a tipping point - The Washington Post


Al