The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

December 08, 2011 - Newly uncovered records show more troops' remains were dumped in a landfill in Virginia than previously reported.
274 U.S. Troops' Remains Dumped In Landfill - YouTube

This is sort of interesting, and not surprising (based on weight of evidence), but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission has found George W Bush & Anthony L Blair GUILTY of war crimes. This verdict specifically goes into great detail about the pre-planning of the Iraq Invasion by the Project for A New American Century through the time period covering the event known as 9-11 where 3,000 American citizens were offered as a commercial sacrifice to PROFIT.
Mike Philbin's Free Planet blog: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission verdict - Bush & Blair GUILTY.

Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

.[QUOTE=rickoff;170436]"The answers are no, no and no. I know I am the only person who can represent my interests. I have two Senators and a Congressman in Washington who claim that they represent me, but that's a lie. They represent the Ruling Class elite. No lobbyist represents me, and I wouldn't want one to."

Firstly, I pointed out this question wasn't directed at you, personally, but a rhetorical question at 'everyone'. Many, even some who read and post on this thread, ARE members of SOME national organisation, which is probably represented by a lobbyist. As I pointed out, the NRA, AARP, PTA and the Boy Scouts come to mind, but their are MANY others. And, any attempt to outlaw lobbyists outright would probably run up against 'free speach' restriction problems.



"Well, you may have helped create it, but I've been fighting it all my adult life."
I, too have been fighting it all my life; I should think you would have percieved my 'contrarian' nature by now. Just cause I'm a pessimist, and share observations with how I see the system as working, doesn't mean I like or agree with, or don't try to 'fight' the system, when I can.



"Who ever said that FEMA, or FEMA camps were good? You don't plan on going to one when TSHTF, do you? Not a good idea."

I meant what 'good', for them. I mean I don't see what 'they' hope to accomplish with these camps.Obviously I have no interest in a "shelter of last resort', which is, I assume, the 'lure' they are going to use, to try to get people into them. And I suppose there will be some so stupid and mindless to not notice the barbed wire is facing in, and will march in like cattle. There are ALWAYS some, who will readily trade 'security' for freedom, and will forget that freedom is not free.

You didn't answer the basic point of my previous post; WHY do you want term limits, if not because your agknowledging the REAL problem is with 'THE PEOPLE'? Getting a different kind of Government is not going to make any difference, what we need is a different kind of PEOPLE. And as difficult as it is to truly change the Government, that is childs play in comparison to getting a different kind of people; People who will take time out of their daily lives, in pursuit of aquiring more STUFF, to really monitor what their Gov't is doing.And, have the intelligence and perception to understand it. And, the foresite to see the possible ramifications. And I don't see how that can be accomplished; the toughest thing to do is change your own behavior; except for changing someone ELSE'S behavior; thats impossible.

My pessimism, you see, is grounded in my perception of human nature.

[Aaron]

feds-demand-customer-lists-from-storable-food-facility

Feds Demand Customer Lists From Storable Food Facility « govtslaves.info

Feds asking for customer lists at Mormon food canning facility used by Mormons and non-Mormons in Tennessee.

I still don't know what to think about Alex Jones - I have seen it all on both sides - supporters and critics. In any case, I do believe Oathkeepers is an honorable organization.

[rickoff]

"The answers are no, no and no. I know I am the only person who can represent my interests. I have two Senators and a Congressman in Washington who claim that they represent me, but that's a lie. They represent the Ruling Class elite. No lobbyist represents me, and I wouldn't want one to." - Rickoff

Firstly, I pointed out this question wasn't directed at you, personally, but a rhetorical question at 'everyone'.

Yes, I understood that, Jim. I was only answering the questions as they pertain to me.

"Well, you may have helped create it, but I've been fighting it all my adult life." - Rickoff
I, too have been fighting it all my life; I should think you would have percieved my 'contrarian' nature by now. Just cause I'm a pessimist, and share observations with how I see the system as working, doesn't mean I like or agree with, or don't try to 'fight' the system, when I can.

Yes Jim, I noticed right from the beginning that you enjoy playing the eternal pessimist role in discussions. I too enjoy playing devil's advocate to offer ideas contrarian to the established "norm," or "official" story.

"Who ever said that FEMA, or FEMA camps were good? You don't plan on going to one when TSHTF, do you? Not a good idea." - Rickoff

I meant what 'good', for them. I mean I don't see what 'they' hope to accomplish with these camps. Obviously I have no interest in a 'shelter of last resort', which is, I assume, the 'lure' they are going to use, to try to get people into them. And I suppose there will be some so stupid and mindless to not notice the barbed wire is facing in, and will march in like cattle. There are ALWAYS some, who will readily trade 'security' for freedom, and will forget that freedom is not free.

Thanks for qualifying your previous statement, Jim. That's what I was hoping you meant.

You didn't answer the basic point of my previous post; WHY do you want term limits, if not because your acknowledging the REAL problem is with 'THE PEOPLE'? ...... My pessimism, you see, is grounded in my perception of human nature.

Sorry I missed that. My reason for wanting one-term limits is because I feel that the present practice of leaving the door open to unlimited consecutive terms serves no one's best interest (other than the politicians). You are correct in saying that the public, if wise, would vote out all politicians after one term, but more often than not this is an impractical solution since the incumbent usually has no one running against him in his party, and thus to vote him out would require voting for a contender in an opposition party that the voter is not comfortable with. For example, can you envision a conservative voter here in Maine voting for the Democrat candidate just to evict RINO Senator Olympia Snowe? In her previous election, there was an independent running against her (Bill Slavick), but he only received 5% of the vote, which is more or less typical for independent candidates. In 2012 Snowe will have two Republican opponents vying for her seat (Scott D'Amboise and Andrew Ian Dodge), but I don't see either of their prospects looking good. Dodge, as a TEA Party activist, would probably garner more votes than D'Amboise, but those who are thinking of voting for him will surely realize there is a strong possibility that doing so would siphon off votes for Snowe and enable the liberal Democrat candidate to become elected. So you see, Jim, I think this has a lot more to do with people seeing that their actual "choice" is severely limited, rather than people reelecting incumbents out of stupidity. And, in the wake of an election, how can we be certain that the person reported as winning actually received the most votes? You really need to get to someplace where you can watch the video Hacking Democracy so that you can fully understand how easily voting results can be manipulated, and that the Ruling Class can totally ensure any election outcome that they desire.

[rickoff]

Feds Demand Customer Lists From Storable Food Facility « govtslaves.info

Feds asking for customer lists at Mormon food canning facility used by Mormons and non-Mormons in Tennessee.

Not only is this story authentic, but it has also been reported that for the past several months many storable foods producers have been unable to keep up with customer demands for their products because the US government has been buying up huge quantities. FEMA "officially" claims to have a stockpile of around 6 million meals, and of course that wouldn't last even one day in a dire emergency. FEMA denies reports that they spent $1 billion on dehydrated survival food early last summer, and of course they wouldn't want that confirmed because it could cause panic. The real question is who would these survival foods be fed to? Starving public multitides, or government officials and "essential" government employees?

[Shadesz]

Personal question relating to your view of the use of lobbyists...

Before I ask though know that I am completely against lobbying. IMO it should be outlawed. Irregardless of that fact I wonder...

Do you see something unethical in using the system to change the system?

Don't get me wrong; I am talking about being completely honest and using completely legal forms of influence. In other words, seeing as certain things are legal, do you see an issue in utilizing those methods in order to correct them?

Honest yes or no answers. And please explain. Also, if you think it is not right to use the system to change the system, what realistic ideas do you have to change it without using it?

I have a few ideas for both positions myself, but wonder what your thoughts are?

[aljhoa]

R.P.MD Contingency

Gracchus: General. I hope my coming here today is evidence enough that you can trust me.
Maximus: The Senate is with you?
Gracchus: The Senate? Yes, I can speak for them.
Maximus: You can buy my freedom and smuggle me out of Rome?
Gracchus: To what end?
Maximus: Get me outside the city walls. Have fresh horses ready to take me to Ostia. My army is in camp there.
By nightfall of the second day I shall return at the head of 5,000 men.
Lucilla: But the legion all have new commanders, Loyal to Commodus.
Maximus: Let my men see me alive and you shall see where their loyalties lie.
Gracchus: This is madness. No Roman army has entered the capital in a 100 years. I will not trade one dictatorship for another.
Maximus: The time for half measures and talk is over, Senator.
Gracchus: And after your glorious coup, what then? You'll take your 5,000 warriors and leave
Maximus: I will leave. The soldiers will stay for your protection, under the command of the Senate.
Gracchus: So, once all of Rome is yours, you'll just give it back to the people. Tell me why?
Maximus: Because that was the last wish of a dying man. [He turns back to Gracchus] I will kill Commodus, the fate of Rome, I leave to you.
Gladiator Quotes (Page 3)

[Aaron]

banking lobby

Lobbying is just legalized bribery. It should be 100% illegal for any non-individual voter to be able to donate one single penny to any campaign for any politician at any level federal, state, country, city, etc...

And definitely should be illegal for one penny of foreign to enter the game.

good video

The crooks on capital hill all have been bought and paid for by the most
powerful lobby there is - the banking lobby.

Even the president, their sock puppet regardless of what party affiliation,
has been guarded and looked over by the banks - the secret service is
under the department of the treasury. Why not the marines or some other
branch of the service? But the dept of the treasury? lol

[rickoff]

Personal question relating to your view of the use of lobbyists...

Before I ask though know that I am completely against lobbying. IMO it should be outlawed. Irregardless of that fact I wonder...

Do you see something unethical in using the system to change the system?

Don't get me wrong; I am talking about being completely honest and using completely legal forms of influence. In other words, seeing as certain things are legal, do you see an issue in utilizing those methods in order to correct them?

Honest yes or no answers. And please explain. Also, if you think it is not right to use the system to change the system, what realistic ideas do you have to change it without using it?

I have a few ideas for both positions myself, but wonder what your thoughts are?

Hi Shadesz,

It appears that your questions relate entirely to political lobbyists and lobbying, so my answers will be in that context. As to your first question:

Do you see something unethical in using the system to change the system?

That depends upon what you are referring to as "the system." Does that mean the lobbying system that is now used to hold power and influence over Congress? If so, are you suggesting that to change this system it might require an even more powerful and influential lobbying effort? If that is what you mean, then yes, I would see that as being just as unethical as the current lobbying system. I would be quick to point out, however, that such a tactic wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in succeeding, because there would be nothing in it for the members of Congress. They would be losing all that political graft that now flows into their campaign war chests. So, to even think of changing things by this method is totally unproductive.

As to your second question:

... if you think it is not right to use the system to change the system, what realistic ideas do you have to change it without using it?

That's quite simple, actually. First, elect a lawful, constitutional, original jurisdiction government composed of ordinary but patriotic citizens who will do their best to right the wrongs that have befallen our Republic. Secondly, a lawfully authorized judicial system will be established, from top to bottom. Next, with all three branches of government having been lawfully reestablished, all of the Corporation U.S. impostors now pretending to serve our country in Executive, Judicial, and Legislative capacities will be booted out as the new government takes control. The lobbyists will either leave with the political impostors or be driven out. New, and very strong laws regarding government ethics would be passed to outlaw political lobbying, as well as other activities that contribute to government corruption. Any government official who accepts any gift, favor, or donation would be immediately removed from office and sentenced to serve a mandatory and full term 25 year prison sentence if found guilty. Trial to determine guilt or innocence would be within the judicial system, not by a Congressional ethics committee, and any citizen professing to have knowledge of such wrongdoing would have standing to initiate such a court case. Similarly, any government official who acts in a manner which could be deemed as unconstitutional, or exceeding their true constitutional authority, could be held accountable by any citizen who files a writ of quo warranto. The judicial system would be compelled to hear all such cases, and to order full disclosure of discovery items sought by plaintiffs in order to prove their case. Government officials could no longer hide behind the protective barriers which they have established for themselves.

[aljhoa]

Paul wins online polls after Iowa Debate;
Crushing Gingrich, Romney
Sunday, December 11, 2011 - 05:21

As for the polls, they asked variations of “who do you think came out on top during the GOP debate,” ABC news.com received just over 8,746 votes of which 6,500 plus were in Paul’s corner. Gingrich followed with 1,000, Romney 590, Bachmann 200, and Perry 156.

Paul wins online polls after Iowa Debate; Crushing Gingrich, Romney | Huntington News

Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick,

I recognise the argument you are making for term limits, and its not invalid. In fact there are a # of elections in 2010, where the 'tea party' candidate split the repub vote, thereby giving the democrat the election. However, to me thats like if Romney got the Repub nomination, and Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party; to me Romney winning would be as bad as Obama winning, therfore I wouldn't be conserned that voting for R.P would 'assure' Obama winning, as I see no difference between Obama and Romney.
Unfortunately, this argument has long been used to disempower 3rd party candidacies.
On the more fundamental question; Do YOU believe in the concept of "collective Wisdom"? That is, that while we all may, at times, make decisions we later regret, and that clearly AREN'T in our long term best interests, (for a variety of reasons) that there is this "Collective Wisdom" where our decisions, in aggagate, ARE the 'right' decisions, and ae in our (Collective) best interests?
This, to me, gets to the real heart of the matter. "Collective Wisdom" is a fundamental, foundational 'belief' for our economic system; the "free Market" idea where the market will correct, etc.
And, its a foundational, fundamental 'belief' for the idea of Democracy; that, (assuming the vote isn't 'fixed' by ballot box stuffing, computer fraud, etc.) that the people will inevitable pick the 'best candidate', vote appropriately on a referendum, etc.
I simply don't believe in this concept, and believe history is rife with examples that 'Collective wisdom' DOESN'T exist; the wars thruout our history, the economic 'bubbles', the behavior of the French during their revolution, the linch mob mentality; there are countless examples of evidence refuting any existence of "Collective Wisdom".
As I don't believe in this concept, I don't believe any changes such as those you propose will ultimately change things, because you are attempting to change the Government, when the problem is with the people.

I have no problem with attempting to change the system, but as long as you have the same people, you won't, over the long haul, change anything.Jim

[aljhoa]

Even the president, their sock puppet regardless of what party affiliation,
has been guarded and looked over by the banks - the secret service is
under the department of the treasury. Why not the marines or some other
branch of the service? But the dept of the treasury? lol

"His last expression was so neat," Mrs. Kennedy told
journalist Theodore H. White in comments released for the first
time Friday. "He had his hand out, I could see a piece of his
skull coming off ... and I can see this perfectly clean piece
detaching itself from his head.
"Then he slumped in my lap," she said. "His blood and brains
were in my lap.
"I kept saying: `Jack, Jack, Jack' and someone was yelling:
`He's dead, he's dead.' All the ride to the hospital I kept bending
over him saying: `Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you Jack.' I
kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains
in," she said on Nov. 29, 1963, a week after the president's
assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jackie.txt
Al

[aljhoa]

The Federal Reserve Bunk
By Harry V. Martin

KENNEDY TRIED TO CHANGE IT
In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Resene System and ordered the U.S. governmcnt to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money.

CONCLUSION
No Congress, no President has been strong enough to stand up to the foreign-controlled Federal Reserve Bank. Yet there is a catch - one that President Kennedy recognized before he was slain - the original deal in 1913 creating the Federal Reserve Bank had a simple backout clause. The investors loaned the United States Government $1 billion. And the backout clause allows the United States to buy out the system for that $1 billion. If the Federal Reserve Bank were demolished and the Congress of the United States took control of the currency, as required in the Constitution, the National Debt would virtually end overnight, and the need for more taxes and even the income tax, itself.
The Federal Reserve Bunk

Federal Reserve Act
Section 31. Reservation of Right to Amend
1. Reservation of Right to Amend
The right to amend, alter, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved.
FRB: Federal Reserve Act: Section 31

40:00 to 43:21 Mark

Congressman Ron Paul

"What is Constitutional Money?" with Edwin Vieira -- Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 2/3 - YouTube

Al

[conradphd]

Feds Demand Customer Lists From Storable Food Facility « govtslaves.info

Feds asking for customer lists at Mormon food canning facility used by Mormons and non-Mormons in Tennessee.

I still don't know what to think about Alex Jones - I have seen it all on both sides - supporters and critics. In any case, I do believe Oathkeepers is an honorable organization.

@Aaron
Alex Jones has some problems and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut or trying to use words he is not quite sure of the definition, yet I will say he backs up his claims with traceable information.

The Feds going door to door checking on food storage and weapons was indeed verified by Rand Paul. (State of Tennessee).

I have not obtained a link yet, but something was going on in Cle Elum Wa along the lines of people raising animals and not Tagging then with RFIDS, sounds right, yet not backup to support this.

I have a plan!. We start a fund to give EVERY Politician a First Class Room at Hotel FEMA.

[rickoff]

I recognize the argument you are making for term limits, and its not invalid. In fact there are a # of elections in 2010, where the 'tea party' candidate split the Republican vote, thereby giving the Democrat the election. However, to me that's like if Romney got the Republican nomination, and Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party; to me Romney winning would be as bad as Obama winning, therefore I wouldn't be concerned that voting for Ron Paul would 'assure' Obama winning, as I see no difference between Obama and Romney.

You're right, Jim. In the past, voters have opted to vote for an incumbent or establishment party candidate simply because they have been led to believe that to vote for an independent or alternative candidate is a wasted vote. I think 2012 will be different, though. I think the majority of voters understands that we cannot afford to make a mistake in 2012. While there are many who believe that anybody but Obama (ABO) is a valid candidate, I think that true patriots understand that we must demand a lot more than that. We need someone who will get in there and fight for the changes that really matter, like ending the Fed and IRS, ending birthright citizenship for illegals, ending undeclared wars, closing the 900 foreign situated US military bases, bringing all our troops home and using them to guard our borders, cutting spending and balancing the budget, cutting the size of Federal government by eliminating wasteful and unconstitutional agencies like Department of Education, Department of Energy, and others. There's only one candidate who would do all this. As he garners more and more support, the Ruling Class media and establishment candidates try their best to marginalize him by passing him off as a "nut job," an "isolationist," and someone who would weaken our military while being fine with Iran and other "rogue nations" having nukes. The Ruling Class rightfully fears this candidate because they understand that a landslide election victory in his favor would give him the mandate he would need to carry through with these objectives. They will of course do everything they can to continue the media blackout on this candidate, while promoting counterfeit conservatives Gingrich and Romney as “leading the polls.” You’re right again in saying that having Romney in the White House would be little or no different than having Obama, and having Gingrich would likely be as bad or worse. With the Ruling Class being able to prearrange primary election outcomes, there are two possible plans they will move forward with:

• Make the public believe that Mitt or Newt has won the nomination fair and square. Not hard to do when you control how the votes are counted. In this example, the Ruling Class wouldn’t care how the final election turned out because either of the major party candidates would be their willing sock puppet and continue to pursue their agenda.
• Allow a candidate like Rick Perry, with little actual support, to suddenly “surge ahead” in polls and capture the nomination. Again, not hard to do when the Ruling Class controls the media and the voting machines. In this example, of course, Obama wins and continues the Ruling Class agenda.

As we see, in either of these examples, nothing would change. That is why we need to emphasize to all those who already understand, and educate people who don't understand, that they do need to vote for the one candidate who would tirelessly work to change all that is wrong, and to understand that this is the only vote (in the Corporation U.S. Presidential elections) that matters, be that candidate a major party candidate or an independent one. I’ll vote for this candidate even if he runs as an independent. There really is no other sane choice in the Corporation U.S. elections. Of course I’ll also vote in the original jurisdiction (O.J.) government elections, just to ensure that my vote actually counts, and in hopes that the effort to install an O.J. government will succeed. Will you do the same?

On the more fundamental question; Do YOU believe in the concept of "collective Wisdom"? That is, that while we all may, at times, make decisions we later regret, and that clearly AREN'T in our long term best interests, (for a variety of reasons) that there is this "Collective Wisdom" where our decisions, in aggregate, ARE the 'right' decisions, and are in our (Collective) best interests?

No, I certainly do not. After all, that’s how we got stuck with Obama.

As I don't believe in this [Collective Wisdom] concept, I don't believe any changes such as those you propose will ultimately change things, because you are attempting to change the Government, when the problem is with the people. I have no problem with attempting to change the system, but as long as you have the same people, you won't, over the long haul, change anything.Jim

On this point I disagree. I don’t want to “change the government.” I want to have the government that our Founding Fathers intended when they drafted the Constitution. I want a government that abides by the Constitution, not one that would trample all over it. Furthermore, we currently have no actual government. So my plan is not to change the government, but rather to install a real one and cast out the pretenders. If the plan is successful, and there is no reason why it can’t be, there will definitely be some hugely important changes made almost immediately, and many more changes that will safeguard our nation and our Constitution for the long run. When we return education to the states, start printing truthful history books, and the sheeple finally awaken to the truth, they will never want to return to the way things have been. You see, things will be different, and that’s because the people won’t be the same deluded masses they currently are.

Now its time to ask you a question, Jim. I’m relatively certain that you will continue to believe that nothing can succeed in changing the way things are, and thus it would be pointless to further discuss the reasons I disagree, since they are already well known. So, since you feel that nothing can succeed in changing the way things are, does that mean you won’t even try, and that you will not bother to vote in the Corp. U.S. and O.J. elections?