The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Hi folks, Hi rickoff, you said it in a nutshell.

This sort of abuse of authority is really repugnant, and this is not just an isolated incident.

I know ive already pointed this out and it doesnt do much good debating spilled milk, but that is the most primal issue right there. Let me give you my visual analogy. If we look at ourselves as all being 1 year old babies, how could this other 1 year old infant next to me possibly have any authority over me, it seems it should be a common sense impossibility.

The fact remains, though, that we are not all 1 year olds and incapable of taking responsibility for ourselves and our families. And we give authority to peace officers to act, in behalf of our best interests, in protecting our lives, liberties, and properties, against those who would unjustly assault these interests. In simplest terms, their mission is to preserve the peace, while serving and protecting us. That is the only authority that we give to them, and when they themselves become the very ones that they should be protecting us against then that is clearly abuse of authority. I don't think you would argue with that. But is it logical to assume that we would be better off if no one had authority to preserve, protect, and maintain the peace? I really don't see that as a practical possibility at any time in the near future. We all know that there are plenty of individuals, and lawless groups, that would trample all over us if peace officers did not exist. You are talking about an ideal, but unrealistic world, where everyone is lovey-dovey towards everyone else and wouldn't think of doing harm to another person. I would agree that the vast majority of people are in fact well intentioned, and respecting of others, but there are also considerable numbers of people who wouldn't hesitate to pillage, rape, sodomize, stab, or shoot the members of your family, or your community. So until such time as an ideal world evolves, if ever, how would you propose that we handle the wicked ones if no one had that authority? Should we just let them do as they please, or should we take it upon ourselves to ensure our own protection by fistfighting with them, clubbing them with baseball bats, or by stabbing or shooting them when we are threatened? What is your suggestion? I'm curious.

Rick

[rickoff]

Another idiot Congressman at work

In post #619 I pointed out how Congressman Phil Hare had no knowledge of the Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold and defend.

Now, here is another Congressman showing his absolute stupidity. You won't believe that anyone could be as stupid as Representative Hank Johnson, of the 4th Congressional District of Georgia. This is not an April Fool's joke. This is very real, and has to make us question how people like this can become elected to represent the public and occupy a job that pays $174,000 a year. See for yourself, in his own words, how Hank Johnson thinks that sending 8,000 troops to Guam would cause the island to become "so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

YouTube - Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grade Congressman?

[citfta]

stupid congressmen or women

That doesn't surprise me at all about Hank Johnson after all he did vote for Obamacare. I hope most people realize he does not represent the intelligence level of most Georgians. I have recently moved here after 61 years of living in Ky. I have been very happy to see that most people in Ga. have a lot of common sense and are pretty conservative except of course for the liberal whackos around Atlanta.

[rickoff]

Michelle Obama says Kenya is Barack's "home country."

In this video, posted April 3rd on YouTube, Michelle Obama admits that Kenya is her husband's home country, saying, "Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his home country in Kenya..."

See for yourself. Click this video link and start at 40 seconds elapsed time. YouTube - Michelle Obama: Barack's Home Country Is Kenya.mp4

Why would she refer to Kenya as Barack's "home country," rather than the United States, if this were not true? And while Americans just aren't quite certain where Barack Obama originated from, and because he has hidden that information from us, every Kenyan seems to know with certainty that he is indeed a Kenyan, and that he was born there.

In this recording, when asked if the Kenyan government will put up a marker at president Obama's Kenyan birthplace, Kenyan ambassador to US Peter Ogego states that "depends on the government, it's already well known."
YouTube - Kenyan Ambassador Admits Obama Was Born In Kenya

When Obama was elected to his US Senate seat in 2004, a prominent Kenyan newspaper ran the story in an online article with the headline,
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

There were no objections or renouncements from Obama concerning that article, which he most certainly would have been made aware of since he maintains close ties to family relatives living there, but the article was pulled from the newspaper's archive when it became apparent that it could prove troublesome to Obama during the Presidential election.

There are lots of questions that haven't been answered, and that have been evaded by Obama. We have a right to know the truth, and to demand answers. While we should sharply focus our attention on the Ruling Class elite, rather than concentrating on their political puppet Obama, we can't quietly allow them to get away with foisting upon us a 2008 presidential election in which neither of the major candidates was qualified, under our Constitution, to become President. Therefore, we must relentlessly continue to ask, WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi rickoff, thanks for your reply, for a minute i thought everyone put me on ignore. You said.

So until such time as an ideal world evolves, if ever, how would you propose that we handle the wicked ones if no one had that authority?

Let me first explain that your perspective and others is fine by me, it is all an experience with everyone holding a different vantage point view of life here. Now can each individuals vantage point view of a situation be missing information and the answer is most definitely and should be obvious based on the limited view one holds at any given time. Though by investigating, research and other less known means one can come closer to gaining a clearer picture of what the truth or reality of a given situation may be. Your view is that without police we may fall prey to every human predator that wishes to do harm and yet at the same time you seem to be saying that the police have become a predator of sorts, which i see to be true to a degree. So we have to ask ourselves, does a so called authority such as police, provide any real protection to individuals. In my view of this, i see the police as being only a mental deterrent, otherwise if one holds no fear of jail or fines if caught, then police cannot protect any individual in real time. Meaning they can usually only sweep up after any event that may have caused harm to an individual. Therefore in my view, the safety one may feel from there existence is illusory and not needed. I just realized your using the true term called peace officer and not police. Yes a peace officer probably was the original intent, maybe. Though in this world, it is apparent to me that almost every position of authority handed to other individuals has been corrupted to some degree and so this is why i am saying that if one is to stay in this type of world at its particular level of awareness, then one can expect that if authority is given to others, that which is above another, you can usually expect almost all these positions of so called authority to be misused. And eventually the ones that are intent on doing harm will either be in jail or will fill these now corrupted positions of so called authority. The next view i hold, is that of seeing how our society and its system function for the good of all, and in this respect is deeply lacking as you may know. So when people are in survival mode with a dependence upon systems that do not serve the good of all, then all of these dis-functions in society will be manifest. Some call it self full filling prophecy, so the results we have and are seeing in society is not surprising to me in the least. Or another way to view this, is that people are putting the cart before the horse. If the basic needs of all are not satisfied, all these other conditions manifest. And since i know the cause of this lack of basic needs of all has been engineered and orchestrated to be so, it is easy to understand how all these other conditions of human society have been created. I hope that helps us to come to a better understanding of one another, peace to you my brother.

Tyson

[Schpankme]

In this video, posted April 3rd on YouTube, Michelle Obama admits that Kenya is her husband's home country, saying, "Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his home country in Kenya..."

See for yourself. Click this video link and start at 40 seconds elapsed time. YouTube - Michelle Obama: Barack's Home Country Is Kenya.mp4

Why would she refer to Kenya as Barack's "home country," rather than the United States, if this were not true? And while Americans just aren't quite certain where Barack Obama originated from, and because he has hidden that information from us, every Kenyan seems to know with certainty that he is indeed a Kenyan, and that he was born there.

In this recording, when asked if the Kenyan government will put up a marker at president Obama's Kenyan birthplace, Kenyan ambassador to US Peter Ogego states that "depends on the government, it's already well known."
YouTube - Kenyan Ambassador Admits Obama Was Born In Kenya

When Obama was elected to his US Senate seat in 2004, a prominent Kenyan newspaper ran the story in an online article with the headline,
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate.
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

There were no objections or renouncements from Obama concerning that article, which he most certainly would have been made aware of since he maintains close ties to family relatives living there, but the article was pulled from the newspaper's archive when it became apparent that it could prove troublesome to Obama during the Presidential election.

There are lots of questions that haven't been answered, and that have been evaded by Obama. We have a right to know the truth, and to demand answers. While we should sharply focus our attention on the Ruling Class elite, rather than concentrating on their political puppet Obama, we can't quietly allow them to get away with foisting upon us a 2008 presidential election in which neither of the major candidates was qualified, under our Constitution, to become President. Therefore, we must relentlessly continue to ask, WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Unfortunately the Constitutional Nationals of the 50 Union states have been duped into participation of Attorney's to seek decisions from the corporation (equity) know as United States Supreme Court.

The founding fathers established the Supreme Court of the united states, for Common Law judgments.

So stop your crying nothing will change until you take back your Republic.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Schpankme

[Aaron]

Request Oathkeepers Assistance

Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin is the highest-ranking and first active-duty officer to refuse to obey orders based on President Obama's uncertain eligibility to act as Commander In Chief. According to information supplied by WorldNetDaily, a respected online alternative news source:

I just emailed all of that to oathkeepers.org. The founder is an attorney
and I asked them to showcase it on their homepage - if they really stand
for their own mission statement, which I think they do.

Here it is in case anyone else wants to send the same message:
Oath Keepers » oathkeepers Contact

[Schpankme]

I just emailed all of that to oathkeepers.org.
The founder is an attorney and I asked them to showcase it on their homepage - if they really stand for their own mission statement, which I think they do.

Why Attorneys Are Not Lawyers -- In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney?" A credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a STATEBAR Certification number. The credential is issued by the boards of examiners and administered by the STATE BAR association, a branch of the American Bar Association, functioning in an advisory capacity to the supreme court of each of the fifty (50) corporate STATES.

Simply stated, they are an advisory board of recommendation to the court. The accreditation number is issued by the state bar association, a professional dues paying union.

As you are about to find out, an ‘attorney’ is NOT a ‘lawyer,’ yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word "bar" is of British origin: BAR -- A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails, one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers." The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

From the definition of ‘BAR,’ the title and occupation of a "barrister" is derived: BARRISTER -- English law. A counselor admitted to plead at the bar. 2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar. 3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. 4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house. 5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. -- Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. -- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

BARRISTER, n. [from BAR.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to pleas at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish them from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to pleas within the bar, as the king's counsel are. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. As with the word ‘BAR,’ each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:

1). From the word "solicit" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘solicitor’; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.

SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin - solicito] 1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking ... 2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

2). From the word "attorn" is derived the name and occupation of an ‘attorney;’ one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.

ADVOCATE v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

4). From the word "counsel" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘counselor’ or ‘lawyer’; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;

COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. -- A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor -- one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor -- one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer -- [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister -- one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate -- one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney -- one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights and property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder. See "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, 1850.

The official duties of an Esquire -- Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of "esquire." This word is a derivative of the British word "squire."

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n. 1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield-bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b. Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c. A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire- was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? The current U.S. BAR Attorneys have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall. Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. [See Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock, 1935, His Classic Critique Distinguishing 'Government' from the 'State']

We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar. Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful monopoly of power and commerce.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law -- Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the corporate STATE with the duty to carry out STATE activities, including "attornment."

State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR union licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over asset transfers.

Schpankme

"In law it is a good policy to never plead what you need not, lest you oblige yourself to prove what you can not." - Abraham Lincoln

[ashtweth]

2 rules of common law
Schaeffer Cox, Dec 1/09 in Hamilton Montana USA

Part 1 - YouTube - (1/11) The Solution

Part 2 - YouTube - (2/11) The Solution

Part 3 - YouTube - (3/11) The Solution

Part 4 - YouTube - (4/11) The Solution

Part 5 - YouTube - (5/11) The Solution

Part 6 - YouTube - (6/11) The Solution

Part 7 - YouTube - (7/11) The Solution

Part 8 - YouTube - (8/11) The Solution

Part 9 - YouTube - (9/11) The Solution

Part 10 - YouTube - (10/11) The Solution

This one isn’t really necessary - Part 11 - YouTube - (11/11) The Solution

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Ash, thanks for posting the great video. I understand how a society in a world can get away from us as it has, getting people to see each other as separate and using survival mode or self preservation, as the man in the video calls it, to get people to make actions and choices that steer us away from seeing all as brothers and sisters. Yes common law = common sense in my opinion.
1) do what you agree to do
2) do not encroach upon people or their property
man i guess I'm a genius lawyer now, lol. which is the proper name as Schpankme pointed out.
Though in regards to our strawman which alot of folks dont realize they have, all these contracts, registries, licenses, etc. etc. could not enable what the so called authorities think they enable. For example, say if people were dumb down since birth, within common law it wouldn't matter because if an individual signed any contract such as a motor vehicle license, it would be null and void from the get go, why, because they would never have even attempted to coerce anyone to get a drivers license because the second law within common law would prohibit a peace officer from encroaching upon your vehicle or the individual. And so such is the case already, lol.
Man, this whole world to this point is like the blind leading the blind, of course without the use of force the would be tyrannists would never have gotten this far.
peace love light
Tyson

[marxist]

apropos "solution"

Those who are eager to observe the way, how "our guys out there on the ground" currently solve the ruling class's problem, may want to go to
Collateral Murder
and download the director's cut as full .mp4 version as a bittorrent (approx 650 MB)

[ANTIQUER]

Hi Rick;

An e-mail I just received:

Don't want to be bothered with "Political stuff?" You'd better read this one. It will come as a huge shock to you if you aren't informed as to what Obama is up to, and it has already passed one hurdle. It will take very little now to put it into actual law!! YOU'D BETTER WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!

So you think you live in a free country.

Boy have you got a surprise coming.

A License Required for your HOUSE?

If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify. If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. No one will be buying homes in the future.

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and are being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and their "experts" are truly out to destroy the middle class of the U.S.A.

A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house? Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill). This is unbelievable! Home owners take note and tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this "Cap & Trade" bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate, it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.



The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure that these voters will get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else..

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house without some bureaucrat's OK. Yes, you read that right.


The caveat (there always is a caveat) is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.



To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.



Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.



And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the Administrator can set new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 - Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America.



Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (expen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody!



The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (that includes YOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the grants.



Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 - Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year...

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.



But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California? It would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate.



Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 - Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

CHECK OUT a few of the sites;


Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home http://www.nachi. org/forum/ f14/cap-and- trade-license- required- your-home- 44750/

HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act: http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ bill.xpd? bill=h111- 2454

Cap & Trade A license required for your home: Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal:
http://www.sfexamin er.com/opinion/ columns/oped_ contributors/ Cap-and-trade- is-a-license- to-cheat- and-steal- 45371937. html
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home: Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home (Thinking about selling your house? HA!)

Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454:

The Federal Observer » Thinking about selling your house? - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill)



Google search?hl= en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859- 1&q=A+License+ required+ for+your+ home-+Cap+ and+Trade&btnG=Google+ Search

Al

[rickoff]

Thanks for posting that, Al. I had also received that in my e-mail and it appears to be true. While we definitely need to begin reducing energy requirement levels for our homes and automobiles, this is not the right way to achieve reductions. For example, the people who cannot afford to retrofit their home before selling it are the ones most likely to also go into default on their home mortgage. Realistically thinking people who know they can't afford their mortgage payments much longer will want to sell before they go into default, but this Act will only prevent them from doing so, and thus ensure that they will end up in default. This is just another tax, and a power and wealth grab to benefit the bankers. We could have near immediate, and very sizable reductions in our nation's energy needs if Congress opened the door to renewable energy technologies. But since they don't have the desire or gumption to do that, the task is left to us to be achieved.

[Joit]

Interresting Diskussion on another Forum, someone postet a Video
from an Austrian Politican, who says, that actually a lot, a very lot Politicans
are Freemasons.
They fight against the Church and infiltrate it, where they can till it is destroyed.
Theyr 'societys' are masked as usual Clubs, but the Structure is more like
national socialism, where one Group or Club watch the others.
He told some Names from Austria, and it was a very long List.
Even, that once the France Freemasons did support the american struggle for Freedom with a lot of Money,
till France been over both Ears indepted.
Today when the President do his Oath on the Bible,
then this is not the Bible from Christians, but the Bible from the Freemasons,
what they bring from NY to Washington for that.
Now, when i think, any Party, if it's Democrats or Republican are only
such Undergroups from theyr Societys, then it would explains it for me,
why nothing do change, when you either choose the one or the other.
And this is probatly in close all Countrys like this.
Another thing, what he said, and probatly is interresting,
Freemasons can lie, when its about her affiliation to Freemansons,
because its in her believe, like it is at Moslems believe.
Only herself can disclose her indentity, for other Members it would be a crime.
And they mainly create mainly global Corporations like the UNO and the EU.

[rickoff]

2 rules of common law
Schaeffer Cox, Dec 1/09 in Hamilton Montana USA

Part 1 - YouTube - (1/11) The Solution

Thanks for the video links, Ash. For those interested, there is a link available for the full length video, which is found here:
YouTube - The Solution, Schaeffer Cox Speaks on the Future of the Liberty Movement (1:39:40)

The actual solution, as presented by Shaeffer Cox, starts at video #6 of the series, or at 46 minutes elapsed time in the full length video.


I enjoyed the series, and Shaeffer Cox makes a lot of sense in what he says. The plan that he puts forward does have potential if enough people would accept it and live by it. For those who haven't yet watched the series, here's the plan that he put into action in Fairbanks, Alaska:

1. Shaeffer drafted and distributed a declaration that was soon signed by more than 15,000 people. The declaration, which begings at 48:25 of the full length video, reads:

Let it be known that we, the people of Alaska, stand in recognition of the true principle that whenever a government abandons the purpose for which we have created it, and even becomes hostile towards that which it was once a defender of, it is no longer a fit steward of the political power that is inherent in the people and lent to this government with strict conditions. These conditions are clearly defined in the United States Constitution, and understood by the common man. Furthermore, to the extent that our government violates these conditions, they nullify their own authority - at which point it is our right, and duty, to entrust this power to new stewards who will not depart from the laws that we have given them. This being the case, let it be known that should our government seek to further tax, restrict, or register firearms, or otherwise impose on the right that shall not be infringed, thus impairing our ability to exercise the God given right to self defense which precedes all human legislation and is superior to it, that the duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them, but to alter or abolish them, and institute new govenment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to us shall seem most likely to effect [result in, or bring about] our safety and happiness.

This declaration is simple and straight-forward, and one could easily adopt and circulate it in their own state simply by copying the above text and changing the state name in the first sentence. Most importantly, it needs to be put where large numbers of people will see it, such as in a newspaper, or TV news story. To my own thinking, while it might seem desirable to modify the text by adding in other items and statements, it really isn't needed and only makes the document more complicated than it needs to be. Quite simply put, the Constitution gives us the right to institute new government when the current government becomes oppressive and fails to recognize our Constitutional rights. While this declaration mainly concentrates on just one of our constitutional rights - the right to bear arms - it is no doubt the most important right to take a stand on. You may be aware that Hillary Clinton has already signed an agreement with the UN that could very well limit, or eliminate, our 2nd amendment right to bear arms if allowed to stand.

2. Schaeffer Cox set up a "Liberty Bell System" registry where those who signed the above declaration could also add their name and telephone number to a list of people promising to respond to a distress call made by any other registered person in their vicinity. To add their name and number to the registry, people are advised to send their request to libertybell911@gmail.com. To see how this works, let's say, for example, that someone gets pulled over to the side of the road by an officer who notices they have an NRA sticker on the rear bumper or back window, and then demands to search the person and vehicle for firearms. The individual places a quick call to the hotline, and everyone who is listed in the vicinity is immediately phoned and asked to respond. The responders go to the scene to simply observe what occurs, and to make video recordings of the event if they are so equipped. This could be an excellent deterrent to improper and unconstitutional searches and seizures as long as the responders are careful not to interfere with, or threaten the officer in any way. The objective is simply to let the officer or officers know that they are being watched. This being said, though, there is a potential for police tactics to intimidate responders and thwart their attempts to observe such situations. Schaeffer Cox found this out while responding to one such incident - a warrantless search of a person's home in Fairbanks. When Cox showed up at the scene, he was arrested for carrying a firearm on his person, even though he did not brandish the gun or make any threatening gestures. As all members of the responder registry are expected to, Cox responds to any and all calls of distress from people in his area. Not knowing what he might be facing when he gets to the location, he deemed it wise to be prepared for a wost case scenario, and be ready to defend himself and others if a life threatening situation occurs. So Cox would respond to distress calls armed with a gun and wearing a bullet proof vest. That seems like a reasonable precaution to take, but it backfired on Schaeffer Cox when he was arrested at the scene. Furthermore, when defending his actions in court, and stating that the warrantless home search was unconstitutional, the court agreed with the arresting officer who stated that the search was valid because someone at the residence had made a 911 hang-up call. The judge ruled that the police had every right to enter and search the home under such circumstances, to ensure public safety.
Alaska Pride: Fairbanks Militia Leader Schaeffer Cox Arrested Again, This Time For Allegedly Failing To Tell A Cop He Had A Concealed Weapon
Now of course one could challenge whether or not a record exists of such a call actually having been made, but if the police want to use this excuse in the future then all they have to do is to use a non-caller-identifiable phone to actually call 911 and claim they are the resident, or a neighbor of the resident who suspects that the people at the residence may be in danger. This then gives them the right to enter at will and search the home, even if the residence owner answers the door and says there is no problem. By staging such raids after dark, this of course also allows the officers to effectively sneak up on the residence with less chance of early detection, and also hampers the ability of anyone to videotape the occurrence. So while the ideals of the Liberty Bell Network are good, and may serve to help protect individuals in certain cases, the authorities can easily come up with tactics to overcome such citizen efforts. That doesn't mean we should not join or become involved in such a responder group, but rather that we should be aware of the potential pitfalls, and think of possible ways to protect ourselves, and other members, from becoming victims of unsavory tactics.

3. Schaeffer Cox and other Fairbanks community members set out to establish a common law court. This is a fine idea, and demonstrates how assertions of harm, or violation of contract, can be resolved by a citizen court if the plaintiff and defendant are agreeable to such settlement. Problem is, though, that those who intentionally commit unlawful acts would either be unlikely to participate in such a resolution, or would not recognize the court's authority in the case of a ruling that goes against them, thus rendering any such judgment ineffective. And when that happens, who pays the court costs? The plaintiff, who has already suffered damages, or the jurors, who have been promised payment for their service to the court? To handle such situations equitably, it would seem that there would need to be provisions made whereby a fund would be established to cover court expenses and restitutions when a defendant refuses to abide by a decision, and that all members of the system would share in bearing the expense equally.

4. The final, or simultaneous, step in the plan, is to create a citizens militia. Many states already have such a militia group, however it would seem that it is most likely necessary to form a newly organized militia with its members comprised of individuals who have already signed the liberty declaration, joined the liberty bell responder list, and agreed to resolve legal matters through the common law court system. The most important thing about the militia is that is must not be seen or regarded as an anti-government group, but rather as a group established to defend liberty as guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Finally, Schaeffer Cox reminds us that, "if we don't put some skin in the game [get involved in a solution], and if we don't reckon with those dark challenges [a corrupt and power hungry government]...we'll be a dark page on history." The mission that needs to be carried forward, as Shaeffer tells us, is "to guard the seeds of liberty. We need to guard the precious gems of freedom that are recognized in our founding documents. We need to take those seeds of liberty, and we need to protect those through this fiery shakeout of the natural consequences of the irresponsible actions of our run amok government. We need to shelter and guard those seeds of liberty and carry those through the flame, and through the fire to the other side, and plant those in the fertile soil when the smoke clears so that there can be hope for a brighter day after the devastating consequences of the horrible rebellion that our government has given to us." I completely agree with this reasoning. The liberties that our founding fathers established for us are precious and worth defending and preserving, and we cannot do that unless we are willing to "put some skin in the game," and accept some amount of risk. To idly stand by as our nation goes down the drain, and as we lose all of our liberties, is not acceptable and offers no hope for a brighter future. It is only by implementing a plan of action, and carrying it forward, that we can look towards a brighter future with any certainty. Just remember that, in carrying a plan forward, we must take care to, as Shaeffer says, "be characterized by what we love [freedom and liberty], and work towards that, and let what we hate [tyranny and oppression] run its own natural course." In other words, be willing to get involved, take a stand for freedom, and be prepared to defend liberty with all that we have within ourselves, but do so out of love for freedom and liberty rather than hatred for those who would deny us our freedom and liberty.

Best to all lovers of liberty an defenders of freedom,

Rick