The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

(We're ALL insane, etc.)

All these things become inevitable, once we made that KEY decision; lifestyle dictates it, and human nature.

We have (in Peter principle terms) promoted ourselves to our level of incompetence,

"Those who don't UNDERSTAND their history are DOOMED to repeat it! which means even after civilisation collapses under its own weight,

There IS no 'answer', to the problems we have created for ourselves;

That we should totally fail to SEE it, is 'human nature'.

Without truly recognising the true nature of the problem, and how it developed, how can you possibly 'solve' the problem?

Who is we in the oligarchy of psychopaths, sociopaths, pedofiles and pederasts?

Al

[dutchdivco]

Did you read the post, Al?

WE, in he context of the post, is ALL of us; Humanity. Actually, it is our ancestors, of 10-14000 years ago, who made this decisio, or choice, to STOP Hunter/Gathering, and instead to 'settle down' in ONE location.
WE, (humanity today, or at least 99.999% of it) are 'seconding' that decision, by continueing the lifestyle.

And only one of the many 'side-effects' of this lifestyle is it,over time, increases the total percentage of our society, that are psychopaths, sociopaths, pedophiles and pederasts.

Surely you have read about the rat 'overpopulation' studies they have done? Increasing # of 'rape gangs' form, (raping BOTH genders, and immature rats, so pederasts and pedophiles, for sure!) cannibalism, all sorts of asocial personality disorders. Its not, (in my view) simply a matter of 'overpopulation'; its that the rats are concentrated in one place. Which, for humans it seems is an inevitable result of ceasing to be H/Gers.

Once the choice is made, to 'settle', you inevitably get 'settlements', which usually grow over time. You get the accumulation of property, that would never occur for H/Gers, as you can only carry so much.

There is a percieved need for 'Governance', to a much greater degree than when H/Ging. Bartering becomes inpractical, hence currency. Hence taxes, employment, and specialisation. Every 8 y.o. child, in H/G society, knows how to provide all their neccesities.
Not so in 'civilisation', where we learn selective skills, and competition replaces co-operation.

WE is US; ALL of us! Hence "I have SEEN the 'enemy', and HE is ME!"

Unless, of coarse, you choose to eshue 'civilisation, and return to the H/G 'lifestyle', of coarse. Jim

[Allcanadian]

@aljhoa

How the Jews of St Eustatius saved the American Revolution

I understand your point however where I come from we don't do much flag waving and we don't tend to put any one person or group up on a soapbox. That is we might say, I think it's wonderful that someone may be jewish or not but really we don't care either way.

It just seems self-centered in my opinion when any person or group keeps saying look at me, look what I did, look what I'm doing, look what I believe and if you do not agree then something is wrong with you... very unCanadian. Moreso we might say come visit Canada or stay however please leave your personal baggage at the door when you enter.

@dutchdivco

WE, in he context of the post, is ALL of us; Humanity. Actually, it is our ancestors, of 10-14000 years ago, who made this decisio, or choice, to STOP Hunter/Gathering, and instead to 'settle down' in ONE location.
WE, (humanity today, or at least 99.999% of it) are 'seconding' that decision, by continueing the lifestyle.

And only one of the many 'side-effects' of this lifestyle is it,over time, increases the total percentage of our society, that are psychopaths, sociopaths, pedophiles and pederasts.

I would agree, I was fortunate enough to grow up in a rural environment where everyone knows everyone and the average small farm is around 2500 acres. It was boring as hell because nothing ever happened and a major event was when someone had too many at the bar and once again plowed over the stop sign at the highway intersection.

I moved into the city for ten or fifteen years but ultimately went back to the country. There are just too many people and an almost complete lack of interaction on a personal level. My neighbor's would come home after work, the garage door open's, they drive in, the garage door closes and I never see them again. There is also all the BS that goes along with a city environment. In the country everyone knows everyone and if you want to do something stupid or bad then you can be 100% sure everyone will know about it and let you know they know. There were no police within 80 miles and they were simply not required.

As well it seems as if everyone in the city always wants something from us or is trying to sell us something which is really annoying. In the country conversation is almost always about family and friends and the community.

If I had to describe the difference between my life in the city and the country I would say the city atmosphere was lacking in tolerance, consideration for others and a sense of community. Too many people with not enough space who do not care enough about their fellow man and the environment they live in. The answer seems obvious in my opinion and as more people become more concentrated the problems will grow exponentially... it's all bad.

AC

[aljhoa]

WE, (humanity today, or at least 99.999% of it) are 'seconding' that decision, by continueing the lifestyle.

The <Humanity> was well defined at the Nuremberg trials that
"... had the same legal status as a Kangaroo Court....
The 'War Crimes Trials' can only be justified by
Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and New Dealist doctrines." - - Rear Admiral Henry C. Flanagan, U.S.N. Commander, Transport Divisions, Pacific
and the <lifestyle> is imposed by criminals responsible for billions of humans lives
therefore, your statement is "falls".

WE is US; ALL of us! Hence "I have SEEN the 'enemy', and HE is ME!"

This is very old "quote" trapped in your mind see below.



... historically the political program for World Dominion was planned 25 to 30 centuries ago (or maybe long before then);
that for short periods and in certain places the plan was succeeding. . . although it has never been successful world wide or
else the progeny of the planners wouldn't still be struggling to bring it about.


Al

[aljhoa]

I understand your point however where I come from we don't do much flag waving and we don't tend to put any one person or group up on a soapbox. That is we might say, I think it's wonderful that someone may be jewish or not but really we don't care either way.

But in Babylon, records have revealed two major banking establishments that closely parallel the functions of our modern day bank. The banking houses of the Egibi Sons and the Muradsu merchant bankers engaged in large-scale operations. Lending took place to individuals, merchants and governments. Deposits were accepted and transferred to another account upon a draft being presented. Deposits also earned interest and notes would be discounted as well as bought and sold. Even venture capital transactions took place where the bankers became the financing partner.
3000 B.C. – 500 A.D. The Ancient Economy | Armstrong Economics

Year by year death toll of the century's atrocities:





The 30 or so worst bloodlettings of the Twentieth Century have (probably) been...



Al

[rickoff]

The media smear campaign against Clive Bundy is in full force now, intending to sway public opinion in favor of Harry Reid and the BLM by attempting to make Bundy out as a white supremacist racist. Bundy had made a statement, during a recent on-camera media interview, basically saying that black folks would have been better off remaining as slaves than most of them are in their current situation. Today CNN's Chris Cuomo (yes, the son of NY governor Andrew Cuomo) conducted a scathing interview with Bundy, who had probably been told that CNN wanted to tell Bundy's story. He granted the interview, and started it by holding a dead calf in his arms that had lost its mother during the government imposed cattle roundup. Chris lambasted Bundy for showing the dead calf at a time of day when children might be watching, and then went on to try and make Bundy appear to be a racist, castigating him for using the word "negro." How crazy is that? The word negro actually means 'black,' and therefore is not a derogative term. Ever hear of the United Negro College Fund? They evidently haven't seen a need to change their name to United Black People's College Fund. Anyways, Bundy made it clear today that he is not a racist, that he would be proud to sit next to a black person on a bus, and believes that everyone should have full and equal rights. Any patriot would understand what Bundy was getting at in regards to his previous statement about slaves. He wasn't saying that black folks should still be kept as slaves. I believe that what he did mean to say is that poor blacks aren't really any better off today as a result of the 13th Amendment, which supposedly set blacks free, or the 14th Amendment which gave them US citizenship. The 14th Amendment actually created a new class of citizenship - a federal one. Prior to the 14th, the People were citizens of the states in which they lived. The federal government created this new class of citizenship as a means of exerting control over the People and their states, and later used this for the purpose of imposing all manner of taxes and regulations upon anyone who willfully accepted that he or she was a "U.S. citizen." In other words, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make all "U.S. citizens" slaves.

Further into the CNN interview of Bundy, Chris Cuomo asked why Bundy would think that he shouldn't be required to pay the federal government for the privilege of grazing his cattle on public lands. Bundy correctly stated that the federal government and its agencies have nothing to do with public Nevada land, since Nevada is a sovereign state. The Constitution clearly states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are held by the states. No mention is made in the Constitution of the federal government being granted the power to establish a Bureau Of Land Management (BLM), or to accumulate vast areas of land. Cuomo would have his viewers believe that the Constitution grants the government the right to purchase and manage such lands. Clive Bundy pulled a copy of the Constitution from his pocket, and was about to show Cuomo that the government's constitutional right to purchase such lands was limited to not exceed a total land area of 10 miles square (ten miles on each side, or 100 square miles in total) for establishing a seat of government, and that further acquisitions of land (and requiring a state's approval) would be only for the purpose of establishing forts, arsenals, and other important buildings. Of course Cuomo wouldn't let Clive Bundy say this, and instead told Clive that he should read the Constitution that he is carrying in his pocket, as if to say that Clive doesn't know what he's talking about. Clive is not an eloquent or quick witted spokesperson, and it was obvious that after the first few seconds of the interview he realized that this was an all out media controlled assault intended to smear his name and assassinate his character. The same should have been apparent to anyone watching. If anyone wonders why CNN makes no mention at all of Dirty Harry Reid's dirty dealings and involvement in this saga, the answer to that question is quite simply that exposing corrupt administration officials is not on their agenda.

[dutchdivco]

Yeah, Rick, I saw that,..

And had no problem understanding what Clive was saying; that Blacks, (or Negros, whatever) are STILL enslaved by the Gov't programs 'intended' to 'help' them, (as are ALL 'poor' in U.S., regardless of their race), and that as bad as slavery was, this Gov't imposed 'slavery' is even worse.

Unfortunately, there are many whites as well as blacks who 'see' rascism, where none exists, cause they WANT to see it.

Recent local example; 2 news local news stories, days apart. A white woman visiting friends, (and getting stoned on MJ), went out to her car, put her kid (in child seat) on the roof, got in her car, and drove off. Kid, child seat and all, fell off, people saw, etc. and she was arrested for child endangerment, etc. (Child was unharmed, by the way).

Second story, a Black women left her 2 small children in the car, while she went in for a job interview. Someone noticed the children, and called police, children were 'overheated', but fine. She was arrested and charged with child endangerment.

Anyway, someone posted the mug shots of the 2 women on the I-net, and said this was obvious rascism, as the white women was treated differently than the Black. ACTUALLY, at the time of the post, the white woman had pled guilty, and was given 13 years supervised probation.
The Black womans case has not yet been heard, nor has she been sentenced, so there can as yet be no way to compare the 2, nor reach any conclusion of unequal treatment or rascism.

But, given the % of the population that 'look for' rascism, such an accusation doesn't have to have merit, it just has to made.

Saw the same thing with that so-called "Stand your Ground" shooting incident in Florida, where the News edited the 911 tape, and so it sounded like the shooter 'volunteered' the race of the victim, when actually the 911 operated ASKED him.

Suffice to say, I believe there is far LESS actual rascism, than percieved rascism.

Its simply one more way of applying 'Divide and Conquer', to the people.
And they use it, cause it works.

"Human Beans"; Legumes with legs! Jim

[indio007]

Only the ignorant think the Civil War was about so called Black slavery.
When the civil war started there were over a hundred thousand white slaves.
Slavery is inherited it has nothing to do with race. If your mommy or daddy was a slave , you were a slave.

What makes this also ironic, is the courts use the same rules that term in slavery, to determine citizenship.

Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad. Report and Letter from the Secretary of State to Congress

Citing Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402

"Does the quantum of Indian blood in the veins of the party determine the
fact as to whether such party is of the white or Indian race? If so, how much
Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or how much white blood to make
a person a member of the body politic known as American citizens? Where
do we find any rule on the subject which makes the quantum of blood the
standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute law of the United States ; nor is it to be found in the common law."

OK... how is citizen determined if not by blood?
The same way as for slaves.

"If, however, the wife severs her tribal relations and lives
with her husband in a civilized community, adopting civilized habits
of life, the children of such a marriage should, under the usual rules,
be citizens, not Indians. In Ex parte Renolds, supra, the question
was discussed at some length, and the court, while stating that as
between a freeman and a slave the principle of the Roman civil law,
expressed in the maxim partus sequitur ventrem, was applied, and so
the offspring be a slave, yet a different rule was applied between
freemen."

.....

"But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of
free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule
partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen — as old as the common law or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus
sequitur ventrem — the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen ; the other
being a rule defining the ownership of property— the one applicable to different
political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom ; the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother. No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country."

Now in light of what the Supreme Court has stated is the meaning of the law, what do you think the legal effect of the 14th Amendment was?

The didn't make equality by lifting slaves up, it made equality by bringing everyone (that is subject to the jurisdiction thereof) down to the level of a slave.

[dutchdivco]

Interesting news items, (Local)

Clive Bundys son came to Arizona, to meet with Sheriff Joe; Pointed out the FED is doing the same thing to ranchers in Az., and asked Joe what he would do, if a situation similar to what happened in Nevada, happened here.

Joe said "You know, I REALLY couldn't say WHAT I would do, I'd have to see, if the situation actually happened. But, my 'boss' is 4 million residents of Maracopa County; I'm sworn to protect THEM, and obey and enforce the law. I REALLY can't say WHAT I would do."

Seperate story; The Arizona Air National Guard has had a squadron of 24 Apache Attack helicopters stationed here, for over 30 years. Air Force pilots come here for training, and I believe this squadron was deployed numerous times in recent years to Iraq/Afganistan. Now the Pentagon has told the Az. Air National Guard, (and 7 other states which also have Apache's) that the Pentagon wants the choppers back! The commandant was interviewed on TV, and said the reason the Pentagon gave was that they 'no longer had confidence in the national Guards ability to complete the mission'!

In military terms, thats well, one HELL of a thing to say! Newscaster then went on to say how many jobs this would cost the economy, blah, blah.

And finally, housing prices have gone up dramatically in the last year, and people are now engaged in 'bidding wars', trying to buy a house. And Info-mercials on how to be a millionaire by 'house flipping' are common, once again.
Todd-Frank did NOTHING to change the way Banks operate, (witness the whole 'London Whale B of A fiasco). In short, get ready, folks, cause "Here we go, again!" Only this time, MUCH 'worse'.

And yes, the 14th amendment was unconstitutional, cause there wasn't a quorum when it was passed, and it enslaves us all. The Social Security # and card is the 'document of ownership'. Jim

[aljhoa]

Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens

Unless you are a noncitizen who wants to
work in the United States, you probably do not
need a Social Security number.

Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get
many benefits and services without a Social
Security number. You do not need a number to
get a driver’s license, register for school, obtain
private health insurance, or to apply for school
lunch programs or subsidized housing.
Some organizations use Social Security
numbers to identify you in their records. Most,
however, will identify you by some other means
if you request it.
We cannot assign you a Social Security
number solely so you can get a driver’s license
or a service that requires a credit check.
Although many companies, such as banks
and credit companies, may ask for your Social
Security number, you generally are not required
to provide one if you don’t have one.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

Conflict of Interest
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.
conflict of interest legal definition of conflict of interest. conflict of interest synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Napolitano described how the Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, has claimed the land on which he was grazing his cattle belonged to the state, not the federal government, and that’s why he chose not to pay federal grazing fees.

“A federal court decided that it belonged to the federal government, and that position was upheld on appeal,” Napolitano said. “Now, that is a decision that never should have been made by a federal court, for two reasons. The federal government should never be in a position in which it is deciding on the extent of its own power … And secondly, when you have a dispute over real estate, there’s a universal principle of law everywhere in the United States of America … that real estate disputes are resolved by state courts.”

Nevertheless, Napolitano added, the federal government won and the decision was upheld.
Judge Napolitano Explains How the Government Snatched ‘Defeat Out of the Jaws of Victory’ on Nevada Rancher Case | TheBlaze.com



A List of Cliven Bundy's Supporters, Now That We Know He's a Pro-Slavery Racist

” Last week, Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center argued that the Bundy militia's philosophy descends from "racist, anti-Semitic violent groups."
A List of Cliven Bundy's Supporters, Now That We Know He's a Pro-Slavery Racist - The Wire


BUNDY RANCH CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ALERT – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | Save America Foundation

Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government


Al

[rickoff]

Finally, the SCOTUS gets something right

This past Tuesday, the SCOTUS upheld a Michigan law that banned the use of "affirmative action" policies in admitting students to their state universities. The law, which had passed as a ballot initiative in 2006, and as an amendment to Michigan's state constitution, had been struck down in 2012 by a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, but Michigan appealed the case to the SCOTUS and won. As justice Scalia correctly pointed out, challenges to laws that rest on equal protection claims must show that the law reflects a discriminatory purpose, and the voter-approved Michigan law did not. Affirmative action policies at universities, workplaces, and elsewhere, have resulted in unfair and discriminatory practices being used against non-minority persons. In other words, reverse discrimination. It's only fair that all people are treated in the same manner, no matter what their race, religion, or ethnic background may be, and this means being afforded equal opportunity with no one being afforded a preference based upon these characteristics, or any others.

The SCOTUS decision in this case resulted from a 6-2 vote. You can probably guess who the 2 dissenting justices were - Sotomayor and Ginsburg, with Kagan recusing herself from hearing the case.

[dutchdivco]

Half a loaf, Rick

My understanding is that while SCOTUS ruled as you said, they did NOT say that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Just that they are defering to states to decide whether to allow state Universities to use affirmative action, or not.
So, its a triumph of states rights, as much as anything.
Other states CAN continue to use race as A factor, although not the ONLY of even deciding factor in admissions, which goes back to previous decisions.
And, one MIGHT infer this is the court steering away from legislating from the bench, Roe V Wade style, and thats a GOOD thing.
But I'm not celebrating too much. Those who have a vested interest in screaming 'rascism' at every turn, are using the decision to fundraise, and continue to ride the rail of 'rascism'. And to 'use' the race card, when its suits them.Jim

[THEminoly]

"the measure approved in a 2006 referendum supported by 58% of voters. It bars publicly funded colleges from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLo1tD4q0kc

[rickoff]

SCOTUS fails to stand for Constitution

The SCOTUS has voted unanimously to refuse to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling which had stated that the plaintiffs in the case had "no standing" to challenge provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by Congress.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the SCOTUS stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”

Standing idly by is exactly what the SCOTUS has done in refusing to hear the case. Their refusal to stand up for the People and the Constitution, against Constitution-shredding and tyrannical executive and legislative branches of the "government" clearly abdicates the responsibility entrusted to the judicial branch by the Constitution to be a check against over-zealous and power hungry lawyers and politicians.

As John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, stated after hearing of the SCOTUS refusal to hear this case, “Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people. No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government,” he said.

And that, my friends, means you, and me, and countless others who are appalled at what we have seen happening to our rights and freedoms in recent decades, and especially during the term of the latest "government" administration. The SCOTUS has clearly become nothing more than a government apologist agency, whose purpose is to provide, under the 'color of law,' a blanket of cover for whatever their US Corporation buddies see fit to do. Instead of hearing a case in which they would have to stand by the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of our nation, they simply refuse to hear any case that challenges the unconstitutionality of any government action. And that being the case, such unconstitutional legislation and actions go unchecked. That, my friends, is the reason why a People's Common Law Grand Jury (CLGJ) is sorely needed. It was established in the Bill of Rights, and is, according to a Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Scalia, a fourth branch of government to be administered directly by the People as the ultimate check against abuses of government power by public servants. If you haven't done so already, please get involved by becoming a Common Law Grand Jurist in your state, as this is the only legal means we have left of defending our rights and our freedoms against a tyrannical and overreaching "government" short of resorting to a violent uprising, and no one should prefer that course of action over a firm but peaceful one. Go to this Internet page and click on your state's name to find contact info for your state's CLGJ coordinator, and give that person a call. Thank you.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Sounds to me like 'signing up' to become a member of a CLGL would be 'registering', for arrest under NDAA! Not that thats intention, just the result. After all, if under NDAA the government can indefinetly detain anyone who's a 'trouble maker', anyone who questions authority, as a 'domestic extremist', than becoming a member of a CLGL would certainly qualify.

No WONDER the Fed. gov't. wants to 'take back' the squadrons of apache attack helicopters, currently under the control and use of the State 'National guards'; they are hellasciously powerful weapons, and the FED doesn't want them in the hands of 'locals', who may refuse to use them against their own citisens, and/or may even bring them into the 'fray' on the side of the citisens, and against the federal forces.

So, while you keep suggesting ways for a 'peacful' and lawful re-taking of power, the fed. Government seems to be preparing for the 'other'.

Its not often that vested interests have 'willingly' surrendered power, and when it appears they have, a closer examination usually shows it was just a manuever, and there was never any real intention to surrender any real power.
GIRD YOUR LOINS, Mo'Fo's! Its coming! Jim