The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes to remember

The following words of wisdom were all passed on to us by Thomas Jefferson:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense
of taking care of them."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

[rickoff]

Many in Congress, and in Barry's administration, are saying that having armed guards at schools is "stupid," "silly" or "impractical," and they probably do believe that is the case ... but, ONLY if it's NOT the school their own children attend!

It is doubtful that mainstream media viewers are aware that the Obama children, and other "important" children in the DC area, attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. Do you know Sidwell Friends School has ELEVEN (11) armed security officers and is about to hire its twelfth? And...the school's security force does NOT include the Secret Service agents assigned to protect the Obama children!

[jdodson]

Look at it this way. If parents worked together and raised the funds to hire a private security guard for an Elementary school with 300 kids the cost would be about $3.50 a week per kid.

1 Full time security guard at $50,000 a year:
300 Students = $167 a year per student.
$14 a month, $3.50 a week.

Is that too expensive to help ensure your child's safety while they spend a 3rd of their lives in someone else's care, while they are growing up?

Would you rather have a single cup of coffee from Starbucks every week or an armed guard at your kids school? I read an article the other day about a teacher molesting a kid while in his class. If we had security cameras in each class and a guard monitoring them, tragic events like that can potentially be prevented as well.

[5150]

Many in Congress, and in Barry's administration, are saying that having armed guards at schools is "stupid," "silly" or "impractical," and they probably do believe that is the case ... but, ONLY if it's NOT the school their own children attend!

It is doubtful that mainstream media viewers are aware that the Obama children, and other "important" children in the DC area, attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC. Do you know Sidwell Friends School has ELEVEN (11) armed security officers and is about to hire its twelfth? And...the school's security force does NOT include the Secret Service agents assigned to protect the Obama children!

The old do as I say and not as I do syndrome huh?

[Mad Scientist]

Excellent quotes Rick.
5150, your right the hypocrisy of our ruling case has no limits.


The administration I’m sure would love to use the Sandy Hill shooting as a way to pass their draconian guns laws. But what would happen if they did?

How many law biding citizen would meekly turn their guns in?
How many would simply hide them away? Guns? What guns? I don’t have any guns!
How many would say sure you can come and take my guns and ammunition, I will happily give them to you ---- one bullet at a time.
How many might decide to band together with their guns and pay a group visit to their representatives and say you have passed a law that is in direct violation of the constitution and that is an act of treason. Thus we have decided to offer you two options; pick-up all your personal belongings and leave this building, and preferably this country, and never ever think about returning. Or two we will forcibly remove you from this building and you will be tried for treason!

The last alternative is precisely reason and the only reason why we have the 2nd amendment.



And a lighter note seeing that it is a new year. “We are still here”


We're All Still Here (We survived Dec. 21st, 2012! Funny music video.) Laurell Eden - YouTube

[dutchdivco]

Sandy Hill, etc.,....What a CROCK!

I realise i'm largely 'preaching to the choir', but,.....before you even talk about armed guards at schools, how about,....Putting in a SECOND door, in each class room? That way if the teacher hears a series of loud 'BOOMS', getting steadily closer to HIS/HER classroom, they have an OPTION, instead of just hunkering down and locking the door, which OBVIOUSLY is a piss-poor plan?
Secondly, these idiots should beware doing SOMETHING, which only gives the ILLUSION of security, without REALLY making anyone more secure.For instance, this school had a 'buzz-in' system, and I'm sure, (prior to this incident) that students, teachers and parents all felt more 'secure' from having it; and it did absolutely no good.
Even worse, sometimes efforts to improve security make things worse; when i was a kid, car thieves stole cars, by hot wiring them when the owner was away, and they were parked. Now, because of all the sophisticated alarms and locking devices, car thieves just 'jack them, at gunpoint, and every so often we hear about some car owner shot, or some car 'jacked with a small child in back.So, did all these alarm systems REALLY make things more 'secure'?
The obvious glee with which the gun control freaks are jumping on this is disgusting, as well as how they are blatantly trying to use it to push their own agenda. Firstly, they say something like "We must make sure nothing like this ever happens again!", and then they roll out their tired old laundry list, which has NOTHING to do with 'Making sure this never happens again"; for instance, 'end the so-called gun show exemption. As far as i can recall, every one of these 'rage' or 'greivance' killers got their guns without using this so-called 'gun show loophole, so how is THAT going to get us any closer to'making sure this never happens again'?
"Re-institute the 'assault weapons ban'; their is no evidence that the 10 years it was in effect made any difference.Does anyone really think a nutjob, intent on killing a lot of people, maticulous in his planning, etc. is going to decide NOT to carry out his 'plan', because he can't get an 'assault' weapon?
The FIRST one, (at least that I recall), was the guy at the Texas University, up in the tower; he didn't use 'assault' weapons, (because they didn't HAVE them, at the time); he used so-called 'hunting rifles', which the anti-gun freaks are saying are 'o.k.' (at least right now).
For Christs sake, the guy in Tucson didn't use assault rifle, he used a pistol.And this kid in Conneticut could have accomplished everything he did, with a fricking ax! It would have been (maybe) slightly messier, and taken SLIGHTLY longer, (but not by much)!
The 'Uni-bomber' used bombs in the mail. Even if 'they' WERE able to successfully keep one of these nutjobs from getting a gun, he'd just use a bomb; their is enough info on the I-net, to 'tell' him how to make a 'suicide' vest; he could probably even kill more people that way.
Obviously, these guns didn't load themselves, kill their owner, (the Mom), get in the car and drive to the school where they killed teachers and students; Guns don't killpeople, PEOPLE (in this case, on F*cked up kid) kill people.And if they are detirmined, and meticulous, (and a nutjob) they WILL find a way. And if you think my axe analogy is a streatch, just go ask lizzy Bordens folks; if your unarmed, and someone attacks you with an axe, your pretty much F*cked!
And this line they repeat over and over "There is no legitimate reason for 30-50 round clips, except to kill a lot of people in a short period of time." When is someone going to speak up and point out that firing ranges charge for the amount of time you spend, standing on the 'firing line', whether you are shoting at the target, loading your weapon, or picking your nose. So, it is perfectly LEGITIMATE to load up 5-10 50 round clips, at home while watching TV. That way, when your at the firing range, you can spend your time there, (and $) on practicing/honing your skill at hitting what your aiming at, instead of loading your weapon?
Again, I know I'm 'preaching to the choir', but just had to vent. Jim

[Mad Scientist]

As I see it Sandy Hook was simply a catalyst for this latest round of gun control laws. But before we blindly agree to more gun control would someone care to answer these questions?

How did a camouflaged person carrying a rifle get into the school? As Jim mentioned the front door was supposedly lock and watched via a security camera, who unlocked the door and why?

Why did “State police” appear to be on the scene before the shooting?

Why did “State Police” prevent a local cop from responding to the shooting?

Why were we told the shooter entered the school with two hand guns, some reports say four hand guns were found, yet latter we were told all the victims were shot with a rifle that was locked the trunk of his car?

Latter we were told the shooter went in with the rifle and wounded only one person while everyone else was shot and killed. Then went back to his car put the rifle in the trunk grabbed two hand guns and went back inside the school to kill himself.
How was the shooter able to achieve such deadly accuracy and do all this in such a short length of time? Apparently 3 -5 minutes. That would seem pretty speedy for a supposedly mentally deranged shooter.

Why did a local paper quote the schools principle as say “a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than I could count.” Could her counting ability been affected by the fact that latter she was reported to be one of the first to be killed?

We were told that this was the shooter’s old school and that his mother taught there. Latter we learned nether had any connection with the school, as the shooter was home schooled.

After going to the trouble of dressing up in a bullet-proof vest, mask and black camouflage gear why would he bother to carry his brother’s identification that he hadn’t seen in a year?

We do have live emergency services radio feed in which we hear that two men have been apprehended and are “proned out” on the ground AND live video footage supported by eyewitness testimony showing what appears to be a THIRD man being arrested by police in the woods but the media didn’t cover this. Who where they and what happened to them? If they were not involved why not just say so, and that they were released?

Why were the bodies supposedly left on the scene for two days before being autopsied? Why would you need to autopsy a gun shot victim? Why can’t certification of the doctor that did the autopsies be found in any of the usual sources?

Why weren’t the parents of the children allowed to see the bodies but rather only shown pictures as a way to identify them?

Aerial photos show all activity taking place at the fire station, a short distance away, not at the school???

A grieving parent was photographed smiling and laughing and then is told he will be on camera and immediately recomposes himself into the roll of a grieving parent to give a tear jerking report of his loss???

Obama flew out for a photo-opt with the victims. One photo shows him with the remaining family of one the shooters victims-------including their daughter that was claimed to have been killed and is sitting on his lap!

Early on “officials” placed both the shooter and his brother at the scene.
Latter the story was either or both brothers planed to kill the parents before going to the school; all this and more speculation began to surface almost immediately.
Where did these stories come from? Could they have been pre- prepared? Were they a set of “alternative scenarios” that if the facts on the ground turned had out differently would have found their way into the official reports? But were inadvertently released???

Why did the police chief threaten the reporters not to mention these stories and only report on his “official” story?

Does anyone notice the similarity between all the recent mass shootings, and now this one. Officially all are claimed to have been carried out by a “lone gunmen” yet at the time of each eyewitnesses reported multiple gunmen! Also other facts don’t match with what we are told. Is this all just a coincidence?

Do you think if the real truth were known, that some sections of the government could find it to be shall we say “embarrassing”?

[jdodson]

@Mad Scientist - I completely agree, how the heck do you know more about this than the paid journalists who seem to refuse to report any alternative details other than the mainstream story line.

@dutchdivco - I agree with most of what you said. A larger gun clip is more dangerous in the same way a bus is more dangerous compared to a car. Either way...All cars and all gun clips can be used to kill. I have yet to hear any discussion about banning buses....?

For instance, this school had a 'buzz-in' system, and I'm sure, (prior to this incident) that students, teachers and parents all felt more 'secure' from having it; and it did absolutely no good.

In this case you are right, however that's not the rule...that's the exception.
If that locked door, or that car alarm, saves one life...it was worth its cost.
I can guarantee you, locked doors, and alarms have saved many lives.

[rickoff]

@MS: I know you already have the answers in your mind to the questions you pose, so my answers to some of those questions, found herein, are not presented other than to support your conclusions and offer further facts that some readers may be unaware of.

As I see it Sandy Hook was simply a catalyst for this latest round of gun control laws. But before we blindly agree to more gun control would someone care to answer these questions?

How did a camouflaged person carrying a rifle get into the school? As Jim mentioned the front door was supposedly locked and watched via a security camera. Who unlocked the door, and why?

From what I have been able to learn most recently, the school did in fact have a locked security door and a remote buzz-in system for unlocking the door. Reports now have it that the glass portion of the door was shot out, allowing the person or persons carrying out the attack to reach in and open the door from the inside. This system had just been installed recently, and the door window was said to have been made of bullet proof glass, so either the installer lied about the specifications or the story of the window being shot out was fabricated. If the security door had been constructed to be truly secure, then why even have a glass window in it in the first place? Even bullet proof glass can be defeated if enough bullets, or other force, is applied. A security door window has no useful purpose, because whoever wants to gain entry is being watched on a video monitor, and the camera showing that image can be mounted outside where no window is needed.

@ Jim: Your idea for possibly having double doors at each classroom would be a very costly endeavor when compared to making certain that all exterior means of entry are fully and truly secure. Windows should be avoided wherever possible, especially close to ground level, and where that is not possible there should be heavy gauge metal security screening to prevent entry through such windows. Heavy duty wire cutters could of course render such screening ineffective, but would at least slow down an entry attempt to allow alerted authorities time to arrive and prevent the entry from succeeding.

Why weren’t the parents of the children allowed to see the bodies, but rather only shown pictures as a way to identify them?

A very appropriate question, MS. Authorities claim that delaying the removal of bodies, and not allowing parents access to the dead children, was to avoid chaos and further unnecessary grief. That may sound logical to some people, though how can looking at photos of a dead child be much less traumatic an experience? Besides, what parent should be denied the right to see and touch their child if that is their preference? I myself see this as being very suspicious and indicating that much about the incident just doesn't add up. If this was a contrived false-flag scenario then there would likely be real victims as well as false victims, just as was the case surrounding the 9/11 events. "Survivor" children were ushered into closets, where they never saw what actually happened. They only heard gunfire and some screaming, and it was all over within a minute or so. The children were then told to stay where they were until police came to escort them to safety. And before being led out of the school they were all told to keep their eyes closed until told to open them, hold the hand of the student in front of them, and walk slowly out of the school in single file. So actual eyewitness reports of what happened are nearly non-existent. The surviving adults were all hiding with the kids, or hiding themselves elsewhere, in the case of office staff, so they can only say what they heard, and what they thought had transpired. Again, a real victim or two is a necessity in order to "prove" the story "accurate," as is the necessity to have some actual grieving persons. But the video evidence of the supposedly grieving father, Robbie Parker, appearing to be "getting into character" as an actor before the airing of his TV interview is blatantly reminiscent of the many false, pre-planned interviews we saw repeated over and over again during and after the 9/11 incidents. We'll likely never know what actually became of any of the children and adults whose reported deaths were merely staged, just as we are never likely to find out where the reported passengers of the 9/11 flights actually ended up.

Obama flew out for a photo-op with the victims. One photo shows him with the remaining family of one the shooters victims-------including their daughter that was claimed to have been killed and is sitting on his lap!

Is this the photo you are referring to?:

This photo certainly does raise some pertinent questions. I have seen some hurried "answers" stating that the girl in Emilie's red dress in the photo with Barry is actually one of the younger daughters, but I don't believe that. Emilie, while looking similar to the other girls in the top "family" photo, had certain facial features that were distinctively different, and which are identical to the girl appearing in Barry's photo op. Incidentally, a link to this photo, as well as a link to the Robbie Parker actor interview can be found at the Facebook website that was established to accept donations to the Emilie Parker Memorial fund. I wonder how much they raked in from this farce? Note too that Robbie Parker was probably not the only actor involved. As the following photo shows, Adam Lanza's "father" could very well be MADTV actor Michael McDonald:


And here's a photo of Lilly Gaubert, one of the children said to have been killed - a beautiful little girl with an angelic face that would surely tug at the heart of anyone viewing the photo.


This appeared on Facebook with the caption, “R.I.P. to this little 6 year old angel who got killed in this horrible tragedy.” In no time at all, the photo had 187,487 "likes" and 6,914 shares, and when Cathy Gaubert, the mother of Lily, found the photo being displayed, she had this to say: "This photo, MY PHOTO, of MY CHILD (this sweet, beautiful, alive and well child!), was taken from my Flickr page without my knowledge or consent and is fraudulently being used to garner ‘likes’ for these pages.

And that's not all. Check this out:

A look at the staff list on the Sandy Hook elementary school website shows that three of the reportedly killed adults (Davino, Murphy, and Rousseau) are not even listed!

And, oh yes, the R.I.P Victoria Soto Facebook page was created on December 10th, 4 days before the shooting spree that allegedly killed her. Nothing like planning ahead, huh? How many times did we see her pretty face plastered on TV, and hear the story of her "heroic" actions?

Early on “officials” placed both the shooter and his brother at the scene. Later the story was either or both brothers planned to kill the parents before going to the school; all this and more speculation began to surface almost immediately. Where did these stories come from? Could they have been pre-prepared? Were they a set of “alternative scenarios” that, if the facts on the ground had turned out differently, would have found their way into the official reports but were inadvertently released???

Of course the news media is quick on the draw to release details about any story, regardless of whether or not those details are backed by solid facts. That certainly is what occurred in some of the reports, but other reports heard early on were directly reported on live media by the authorities themselves, and had nothing to do with speculation. The fact that some of this info was later restated as having been inaccurate certainly does lend credence to the idea of the stories having been changed simply to have a better fit with the overall picture that the authorities and the media would like us to swallow. The fact that there were official retractions, restatements, and omissions of inconvenient facts, stands out as evidence that preplanned statements arranged in advance of the incident did not correlate very smoothly with what the public observed, and had to be altered.

Why did the police chief threaten the reporters not to mention these stories and only report on his “official” story?

Simply to attempt to maintain control over what would be the "official facts" of the matter. Much the same, of course, as George W's statement after the 9/11 incidents: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves - away from the guilty." Of course the "official" story of 9/11 itself is nothing more than an outrageous conspiracy theory offered for consumption to the public by those who actually were the terrorists. In the same manner, the warning to reporters after the Sandy Hook incident that they must report nothing but the "official" story has nothing to do with truth in reporting, but has everything to do with control over what is reported. Investigative journalism, or rather the freedom to carry out true investigative journalism regarding major events in the United States, died a long time ago.

[Shamus]

There may be a chance to get rid of Mr. Barry Soetoro (nee Barack Obama), but fast action is required: Read more here.

Please spread the word!

[Mad Scientist]

Authorities claim that delaying the removal of bodies, and not allowing parents access to the dead children, was to avoid chaos and further unnecessary grief. That may sound logical to some people, though how can looking at photos of a dead child be much less traumatic an experience? Besides, what parent should be denied the right to see and touch their child if that is their preference?

Exactly! If a child was hit and killed by a car when riding a bike would the parents be prevented from seeing it?

Now this is just “speculation” on my part. But…. It has been reported that many of the “powers-that-be” are into pedophilia, because it gives them a feeling of power, etc. So along with demonizing gun owners and the 2nd amendment could the possibility of rounding up a fresh patch of kids just have been too much to pass up?

[Mineko]

Exactly! If a child was hit and killed by a car when riding a bike would the parents be prevented from seeing it?

Now this is just “speculation” on my part. But…. It has been reported that many of the “powers-that-be” are into pedophilia, because it gives them a feeling of power, etc. So along with demonizing gun owners and the 2nd amendment could the possibility of rounding up a fresh patch of kids just have been too much to pass up?

...Die, all of them.

[rickoff]

There may be a chance to get rid of Mr. Barry Soetoro (nee Barack Obama), but fast action is required: Read more here.

Please spread the word!

Yes, this Quo Warranto legal action is for real, and and we should get behind it and do what is being asked of us. Any action whatsoever that has any chance at all of succeeding in peacefully dethroning Barry is well worth the effort on our part. At first hearing of this action, I was somewhat skeptical as to whether or not this was for real, had any chance of succeeding, and whether or not it made sense to oust Barry just to replace him with Mitt.

As to the first question, my skepticism was fueled by the fact that the quo warranto action was brought by someone reported to be named Zane Grey. Zane Grey was the pen name of a famed writer of western sagas, of course. It turns out, though, that Zane Grey is also the legal name of an individual who in November was elected as the original jurisdiction governor of Pennsylvania.

As to the second question, I was skeptical as to whether this quo warranto action had any chance of succeeding since a quo warranto case had already been filed against Barry by lawyer Orly Taitz, and had been dismissed by the courts as being frivolous. It has been pointed out, however, that the Taitz case was filed after Barry had been inaugurated and seated, which greatly complicated the quo warranto action, since the proper time to file such suit is the period of time between the election
and inauguration dates. That time is now, but will expire January 20th, hence the need for immediate action to press the case forward.
As to the third question, I still have reservations about the proposal to oust Barry just to replace him with Mitt as Corporation US president. Sure, anybody (or just about anybody) would be better than Barry, but when that anybody happens to be Mitt Romney then I don't see much difference. He's an establishment politician who has already said that he would not work to end the Federal Reserve, and quite frankly the only position in his platform that differentiated him from Barry was his promise that he would end ObamaCare on his first day in office. If he could in fact do that, and would do that, then I'm all in favor of this quo warranto action being pursued to the max. My negative thoughts in this regard have centered around two things:
1. How Ron Paul was unfairly prevented, by the Romney camp and the GOP, from fairly winning primaries, being nominated at the convention, and being denied delegates which he had fairly won. Because of that, I could not, and did not, vote for Mitt.
2. I am of the opinion that it has never been satisfactorily proven that Mitt Romney is any more qualified as eligible for the office than Barry. I spelled out the reasons for that in a post here quite some time ago. It revolves around whether or not both of Mitt's parents were actually US citizens at the time of Mitt's birth. Mitt's father George was born in Mexico to parents who had been US citizens, but may well have given up their citizenship in order to become Mexican citizens. It is known that they had owned land in Mexico, and had successfully sued the Mexican government in 1938 for loss of that property during the Mexican revolution, when they had fled back to the US. This is an important fact, because only Mexican citizens were allowed to own land in Mexico at that time, so they would have had to prove their Mexican citizenship in order to win their case. Mexico did not recognize dual allegiances or dual citizenship, so George Romney's parents would have had to renounce their allegiance to the US, as well as their citizenship. So far I have been unable to find any valid proof that George Romney was ever naturalized as a US citizen, though by the same token I cannot say that proof does not exist. Therefore, it would be better to err by giving George, and Mitt, the benefit of the doubt at least temporarily until such proof (or absence of it) is confirmed.

I'm doing my part to help move this action forward, despite any reservations that remain, simply because we know with a certainty that Barry is not eligible, and have known that since Barry was a Senator. Therefore, I urge everyone to do the same, regardless of their thoughts concerning Mitt Romney.

By the way, the original jurisdiction elections succeeded in seating governors in all but two states - Nebraska and North Dakota. It is shameful that no one in those states carried the effort forward to ensure success in 2012. The person who had been serving as oj governor of Nebraska had passed away during his term of office, and it became necessary to hold a new election, but that effort evidently failed for some reason other than lack of a candidate. In North Dakota, it appears that the people just never got their act together, as there was no candidate.

[the bob]

Obama said one time on open mic "We'll work on gun control under the radar".

[rickoff]

The following is a letter written to Dianne Feinstein, the author of a previous piece of legislation which banned assault rifles for several years, and who has introduced new legislation not only affecting assault weapons, but several other firearms as well. The letter is well worth the minute it will take to read it.

Senator Dianne Feinstein:

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the People, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston, 
Cpl,
United States Marine Corps
2004-2012