The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

On and on

Actually, (although I cannot quote the precedent) I believe there was a previous Supreme Court discision, finding Corporations are 'people' and entitled to the rights a person is entitled to. I say this because an old friend of mine (now dead) used to bring this issue up, from time to time, during debates we had. According to him, a court clerk misfiled something, and no one caught it at the time, and as a result Corporations were 'granted' the rights of people. Alas he's dead, (and I miss him), so I can't go back and ask him for the details.

Anyway, there are 2 seperate issues, regarding B.O.'s eligibility. After all the work Rick did, the birth certificate is not, I think, an issue. A seperate issue is whether it even GETS to the point of the birth certificate; If 'natural born citisen', as stated in the Constitiution, does, in fact, mean someone born on American soil from 2 parents who were U.S. citisens, then B.O. is not qualified, regardless of what his birth certificate says.

On the issue of one parent or two, a rational for 1 parent DOES occur to me; you really can't KNOW or PROVE who the father is; its all a matter of taking the Mom's word for it. You CAN know who the mother is, however. MAYBE thats why they say 1 parent? Jim

[aljhoa]

Al, is there a video that works for this? I think I saw that when it came out but the youtube acct is now disabled.

Hologram Experiment In China? - YouTube

Al

[aljhoa]

We're all illegal aliens here - especially the European "forefathers" who raped and pillaged the people and the land centuries ago.

Another "4th of July"

Boot Camp
Independence Day Speech (Movie) - YouTube

Queen or Corporations
Who Owns The World Part 1 xvid - YouTube

Amazon.com: Who Owns the World: The Surprising Truth About Every Piece of Land on the Planet (9780446581219): Kevin Cahill, Rob McMahon: Books

Al

[Shadesz]

You know I was wondering how the polls could be so different than the outcomes of the recent elections and realized that most of the polls now days are conducted online. This might be part of the reason.

The thought is this... people who actively participate in things such as online polls are often younger. Regardless of their age they probably rely less on information coming from the "done" tv news stations. Because of this, online polls represent a different demographic than the entire voting population. Hence a difference in online polls and actual voting outcome.

As far as phone polls, I believe that many 'drones' that do end up voting would chose not to participate in a survey even if they got called. Mainly because deep down they know that they haven't put enough effort into choosing the best candidate. And when voting time comes they still haven't truly decided and just go vote for whoever the news tells them everyone else is going to vote for. This might be the second part of the polls to outcome discrepancy.

These two issues alone may account for the difference in the recent pre-election polls and post election outcomes. Don't get me wrong, I have watched my share of voting fraud videos and documentaries and believe it would be both easy and tempting for those that want power to manipulate the system. I simply wanted to share the thought that perhaps we still have work to do, and all hope is not lost to voter fraud...

[Aaron]

A Noble Lie

A Noble Lie - Oklahoma City 1995

I remember during the Oklahoma city bombing that the news reports admitted they found other bombs planted throughout the building. That was then yanked immediately and no national media would repeat that fact.

This documentary seems to include these facts and a lot more. I haven't seen it myself yet and only watched the trailer.

I watched "In Plane Site" about 9/11 and that dvd had the original news reports about discovering other bombs in the bldg.

Here is a free copy online for now: A Noble Lie - Oklahoma City 1995 FULL MOVIE - YouTube

[Core]

From a news cable point of view, here in America you are lead to believe that MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS are competing against each other. Also that one is more hard left/right then the other.

Not even a whisper on those networks about Ron Paul. Here is a screen shot of Drudge Report this morning (1/21/2012). One would think that the news media would be curious as to why Ron Paul has such a huge lead. Like I said not a whisper. Then they wonder why people call for revolution.

-Core

[dutchdivco]

Did we just get 'spammed'?!!

Not sure what Darshans incense has to do with the American Ruling Class? Does someone need to rmove this 'junior member', who, it appears, just spammed us?
As to polling, it has never been a perfect science, its more like a black art. The reasons you suggest for the discrepancies are valid, and there are others as well. Polling likely voters as opposed to registered voters will ALWAYS yield different results. How, specifically, the questions are worded, the timing of the poll, etc. all effect the outcome.
In addition, this is a fairly unique situation; the majority DON'T seem to want Romney, thats clear. However, for a great many, they are conflicted about WHO they want, weighing choices between their desire to see someone nominated who can beat Obama, and someone who truly represents their views, and not sure the 2 aren't somewhat mutually exclusive.Many are saying if they could take all the candidates and roll them together they would have the ideal candidate. I do think there are a # who are on the horns of this dillema, and so don't make up their minds until the last minute, and this also skews poll results.
I don't expect R.P. to do well in South Carolina, due to his foriegn policy positions being unpopular there.I would LOVE to know, according to the 'representative' delegate system being used this time, how many delegates R.P. has accrued so far, and how many the other candidates have gotten. And, what happens to delegates for candidates that subsequently drop out of the race? Are they then 'free' to 'vote' (at the convention) for whoever they want? Seems to me R.P. could 'pick up' some M.Bachman votes this way, some H.Cain delegates, and even some whatsisname, the 'other moderate'; embassador to China, etc. guy. This, combined with the delegates he (R.P.) gets as a result of the polls and caucauses where he is coming in a close second, could give him nearly enough delegates at the convention to 'upset the applecart', or lead to a 'brokered convention', where no one candidate has enough (delegates) to gain the nomination. This would make it VERY interesting! Jim

[aljhoa]

I don't expect R.P. to do well in South Carolina, due to his foriegn policy positions being unpopular there.I would LOVE to know, according to the 'representative' delegate system being used this time, how many delegates R.P. has accrued so far, and how many the other candidates have gotten. And, what happens to delegates for candidates that subsequently drop out of the race? Are they then 'free' to 'vote' (at the convention) for whoever they want? Seems to me R.P. could 'pick up' some M.Bachman votes this way, some H.Cain delegates, and even some whatsisname, the 'other moderate'; embassador to China, etc. guy. This, combined with the delegates he (R.P.) gets as a result of the polls and caucauses where he is coming in a close second, could give him nearly enough delegates at the convention to 'upset the applecart', or lead to a 'brokered convention', where no one candidate has enough (delegates) to gain the nomination. This would make it VERY interesting! Jim

Queen - 'We Will Rock You' - YouTube

Queen - 'We Are The Champions' - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Found it!

When all else fails, 'google' it. Here;
Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
is a New York Times site which is keeping track of the delegate count.
1144 needed to win, 2249 total delelgates 'available'. So, for anyone who truly wants to keep track of the 'horserace', by following the delegate count, well, here you go. Jim

[rickoff]

Barry summoned to appear at Georgia eligibility hearing

See video of this story here.

Judge Mailihi has turned down Barry's lawyer's request to quash the eligibility hearing, and has issued a summons for Barry to appear. In his decision, Malihi stated, “Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued. “Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.'”

Originally posted by dutchdivco: "Anyway, there are 2 seperate issues, regarding B.O.'s eligibility. After all the work Rick did, the birth certificate is not, I think, an issue. A seperate issue is whether it even GETS to the point of the birth certificate; If 'natural born citisen', as stated in the Constitiution, does, in fact, mean someone born on American soil from 2 parents who were U.S. citisens, then B.O. is not qualified, regardless of what his birth certificate says."

Everything about Barry is an issue. While the constitutional "natural born citizen" eligibility test should have prevented Barry from running in 2008, it didn't. And now he is trying to run once again. The SCOTUS isn't likely to settle that issue, as they have been dodging it all along. The reason the birth certificate issue is important is because it may be even easier to prove that Barry is not even a US citizen, let alone a natural born one.

Originally posted by dutchdivco: "On the issue of one parent or two, a rational for 1 parent DOES occur to me; you really can't KNOW or PROVE who the father is; its all a matter of taking the Mom's word for it. You CAN know who the mother is, however. MAYBE thats why they say 1 parent? Jim"

What one parent issue are you talking about, and who are "they?" Do "they" suggest that Barry only had one parent, or that only one American parent was enough to make Barry a natural born citizen? That suggestion doesn't hold up to scrutiny if we take our understanding of "natural born citizen" from the SCOTUS decision in the Minor vs Happersett case, wherein it was stated, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Furthermore, in Barry's case we can't even be certain who the mother actually is, let alone who his father might have been. We assume it is Stanley Ann Dunham, but without a valid birth certificate there is no proof of that whatsoever. According to Barry, his father was Barack Obama sr, a Kenyan and British subject. If that actually is the case then Barry is a British subject because he inherits his father's status, and thus cannot be a natural born US citizen.

[aljhoa]

Presidential gun record guide
Posted on January 13, 2012 by NAGR Staff

I’ve been reminding NAGR members and supporters that Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican candidate
who has returned his NAGR Presidential Survey 100% in favor of our gun rights.
Presidential gun record guide | National Association for Gun Rights



Al

[aljhoa]

TSA detained R.P. indefinitely from Pro-Lifers

Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

» Breaking: Rand Paul Held by TSA at Nashville Airport Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Al

[dutchdivco]

Sorry, Rickoff

I should have clarified, as my posts ended up being out of context. Firstly, I meant the birth certificate SHOULDN'T be an issue, for those who have read this thread, and all the work you did. Its NOT an issue, it (the 'birth certificate') posted on the Whitehouse website, is OBVIOUSLY bogus.

Secondly, the 'they' I was refering to, was the Law Professors that someone previously posted had said that THEIR interpretation was that only one parent had to be a citisen, rather than both, and I was speculating as to why they might have said that. After all, DNA is a firly recent technology, and prior to that, who the father of any child was, was a matter of taking the mothers word for it. Thats all I was saying.

I'm not sure WHICH is the easier issue to prove; If what Al posted earlier is 'valid', i.e. that BOTH parents of a child must be U.S. Citisens, than Obama has made no secret of the fact his Dad wasn't, so that may be the easier one to prove. With the Birth certificate, while I believe you and others have shown that what was released by the whitehouse as being barry's birth certificate is obviously bogus, that needs to be presented in Court, with court recognised experts, etc. Since Barry has (so far) blocked any such efforts, that hasn't been easy, at least from the standpoint of convincing 'the public'. You know the smear campaign, and how 'birthers' have been discredited as nuts. SOMETHING needs to be pretty concrete, in order to break thru the denial that makes this disinformation campaign work.

Lets face it, most people don't want to belive that the guy thats been in the oval office for the last 3 years is illegitimate. Even if they don't agree with his politics.

Got an e-mail fro "Conservative alerts", saying that 953 dead people voted in the S.C. primary. They say Pres. Johnson used to tell an old 'joke'; He and some other Party 'officials' were in a graveyard in Texas, copying names off gravestones, back when he was running for the senate. One young staffer was knealing down at a gravestone, and said "No, the suns going down, and I'm tired, and i can't read the name". And Johnson quipped "No, son, you get back down there and read that name! That dead persons got as much a right to vote as any of the other people in this graveyard!"

This kind of foolishness has been going on for a long time, and both parties LIKE the system the way it is, with holes than can take advantage of.

The idea that requiring some legitimate form of I.D. in order to vote is descrimination is absurd! Maybe we should just go to using puple ink, like they did in Iraq?See how people would like that?????

Anyway, sorry Rick, if you misunderstood me. I agree Barry's illegitimate, in more ways than one. just discussing methods/means to PROVE it. Again, a variation on something I asked earlier. What happens if, in say,....Oct. a court comes down with a ruling, saying Barry is unqualified, and CAN'T be elected President, or even serve? Well, he 'steps down, and (shudder) Joe Biden becomes Pres. All the ballots are already printed, with Barry on them as the pres. candidate for the democrats. Of coarse, what you are actually voting for is electors, to go to the electoral college. Still, even if the 'democrat' electors DID get enough votes to 'win' if they voted for someone else (other than barry) there would be 'hell to pay'.

One thing is it would surely lock down some way, and someone to be responsible for insuring that EVERY candidate was constitutionally eligible, from here on out. THAT is something I would very much like to see, at a minimum, come out of this whole issue. Actually getting Barry 'disqualified' is a dream goal, but not sure it will happen. Hopeful, but pessimistic, thats me! LOL Jim

[rickoff]

I agree Barry's illegitimate, in more ways than one. Just discussing methods/means to PROVE it. Again, a variation on something I asked earlier. What happens if, in say,....Oct. a court comes down with a ruling, saying Barry is unqualified, and CAN'T be elected President, or even serve? Well, he 'steps down, and (shudder) Joe Biden becomes Pres.

Ayuh, as people here in Maine are often heard to say, Barry is not only an illegitimate President, but was technically born illegitimate as well since his father was already married at the time he married Stanley Ann Dunham. Curiously, some O-bots use this as an argument to state that since Barry was illegitimate then he would not have been recognized by Britain as a British citizen. That doesn't much matter even if so, of course, as Barry would still have been a Kenyan with divided loyalties. Fact is, though, the British did recognize the fact that Kenyans had multiple marriages, and that all children born to those marriages were considered legitimate British subjects. Therefore, it would not have been illegitimate for an already married Kenyan to marry a citizen of another country (USA), even though US law would frown upon such marriage. The illegitimacy aspect is only related to US law, where Barry would indeed be illegitimate unless Barry Sr had divorced any previous wives first before marrying Dunham. Barry Sr did state to US immigration officials that he had divorced his prior wife, before marrying Dunham, saying that he had communicated to her that he no longer considered himself married to her, and that this was considered sufficient for divorce in Kenya. A US court would want to see divorce papers, of course, and would rule that without such documentation Barry Sr would still be considered legally married to his former wife. Interestingly, though, Dunham sought and gained a divorce from Barry Sr, rather than an annulment, after finding out he already had a wife, and so the marriage of Dunham and Barry Sr was never ruled illegitimate. Without such a ruling, Barry Jr could not be legally declared as being illegitimate even in the USA.

If Barry were ruled as being unqualified to serve as President then of course he would have to step down, but Biden could not serve either, as he would have been part of an illegitimate 2008 ticket. Same goes for Secretary of State Hillary, as she was appointed by Barry, who was ineligible to make such cabinet appointments, though the order of succession would first go to Boehner, and then to Daniel Inouye before reaching Clinton.

I'm sure that Barry's lawyers will keep this whole thing going long enough to at least allow him to serve out the remainder of this term. The legal effort now underway in Georgia and some other states may prevent Barry from getting on the 2012 ballot and being reelected, but I don't see it as having much chance of dethroning him before the 2012 elections. While the Georgia case, that I mentioned yesterday, may very well rule that Barry is unqualified to be placed on the Georgia ballot, Holder's Department of inJustice would then sue the state of Georgia, and Barry's lawyers would appeal the Georgia decision to a Federal court and keep the thing tied up for as long as they need to.

[rickoff]

SOPA and PIPA

SOPA (House bill HR3261), the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA (Senate Bill 968), the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," are nothing more than federal power grabs intent on gaining regulatory control of all Internet content.

After an intense round of protests on January 18th, Harry Reid postponed a vote on the Senate bill "until issues raised about the bill were resolved," and the House Judiciary Committee said it would "postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution." I'm sure these onerous bills will come back again to threaten free speech rights, but probably not until after the 2012 elections, as legislators now realize support of these bills would probably end their political careers.

Under SOPA, if just one writer in a forum or blog posted copyrighted material then the entire Internet domain where the post occurred would be shut down. The person responsible for making such a post would receive a 5 year prison sentence. Now imagine someone posting a Michael Jackson song or video at an Internet sharing site, and going to jail for 5 years. That is one year longer than the sentence imposed on the doctor who killed Michael Jackson! Makes a lot of sense, huh?