The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

I think it was Nixon who first liked the idea.

(CBS) – Activists who have been protesting in Chicago claim they have proof
that police have been using so-called “Stingray” technology to eavesdrop
on their phones, reports WBBM’s Mike Krauser.

The technology essentially puts up a wall between the user’s phone and
their provider, forcing phones in the immediate area to send data to
the police instead of the nearest cell towers.
Activists Say Chicago Police Used ‘Stingray’ Eavesdropping Technology During Protests « CBS Chicago

https://www.torproject.org/

https://secure.cryptohippie.com/

Cryptohippie Responds to the NSA's Attack on Encryption | Casey Research

Linking Routers - DD-WRT Wiki



Al

[aljhoa]

What do you think—is it time to get worried yet?

FEMA Update 2014

Taken to FEMA Camps and RFID-ed


Al

[BroMikey]

Social Breaking Point





The only safe place now will be in a bunker.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzkTAcApEqs

[aljhoa]

During the Bush administration, Israeli-American dual citizen and Director of Homeland Security Chertoff
mandated that American police forces be trained by Israeli groups in crowd control, counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering.

Since that time, shootings of unarmed civilians has gone up 500%, attacks on legal political protests by police have become a scandal and
huge stockpiles of ammunition and military heavy weaponry have been distributed to law enforcement groups in every region of America, both local and federally controlled.
Press TV: Tragedy of US police training by Israeli companies | Veterans Today


Al

[aljhoa]

The Center for Preventive Action’s annual Preventive Priorities Survey (PPS) evaluates ongoing and potential conflicts based on their likelihood of occurring in the coming year and their impact on U.S. interests. The PPS aims to help the U.S. policymaking community prioritize competing conflict prevention and mitigation demands.

2015 Findings
Six new contingencies appear in this year’s survey. Of these, two were ranked Tier I contingencies: an intensification of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed militia forces and Ukrainian security forces with the potential for more overt Russian military intervention, and heightened tensions within Israel and the Palestinian territories. Growing political violence in Turkey between various Kurdish groups and Turkish security forces exacerbated by spillover from the Syrian civil war was determined to be a Tier II priority.
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/P...vey_2015-2.pdf



DARPA Testing Self-Guided Bullets


Diff. System
How It Works | TrackingPoint



Al

[Gav]

..........

[aljhoa]

Miss Guilard never raised her hand as the Nazis did!

Al

[rickoff]

I already gave you folks the lowdown on the Republican cave-in on the $1.1 trillion CROmnibus package, which included provisions for nearly $1 billion funding of Barry's unconstitutional executive amnesty. The remainder to that story is what happened in the Senate. That was the final opportunity to stop Barry's plan. Ted Cruz demanded a roll call vote on a point of order, which would have found the spending bill unconstitutional for including funding of Barry's plan. There are 45 Republicans in the Senate, so all of them should have wanted to vote with Cruz and force the spending bill to be amended to eliminate that funding. Mike Lee presented such an amendment, so there was no reason for the Senate not to vote on these 2 matters, but Harry Reid refused to allow these votes and instead brought up confirmation votes on Barry's several appointments as a means of killing time. Then, as the deadline approached for a shutdown, the Senate was forced to vote on the spending bill before Cruz could have his point of order voted on. The spending bill was passed, and the point of order vote had only 22 Yeas - all of them Republicans, but only half the Senate Republicans. And 4 Republicans didn't even bother to vote. The majority of Republicans voiced disapproval over the Cruz and Lee tactics, claiming that this allowed Dirty Harry Reid to get Barry's appointees like Surgeon General appointee Vivek Murthy confirmed - something they claim they were dead set against doing. Of course that was a big lie, because a 60 vote confirmation was needed for each appointee, meaning that at least 5 Republicans had to jump ship and vote with Democrats if all the Democrats actually voted for confirming the appointments. Therefore, the negative statements about Lee and Cruz coming from Republicans was pure b.s. and aimed only at misinforming the public in an attempt to discredit TEA Party conservatives.

There were no Democrats voting Yea, despite the fact that 12 Democrats had publicly stated that they regarded Barry's decision as being an unconstitutional end-run around Congress. If all 45 Republicans, and just half of those Democrats had voted Yea then Barry's amnesty funding could have been stripped from the spending bill. Instead, the Social Security cards and work permits will be going out to roughly 5 million illegal alien immigrants, and this will undoubtedly occur before the DHS runs out of funds in February, so there is now no way to stop the amnesty. Republicans claim that they will fight the amnesty after the new Congress convenes, but I think we can reasonably assume that is just lip service with no teeth. They believe that public outrage will subside to a low moan over the 2 month intervening period, and any legislation to defund an already funded program will require 60 Senate votes, which is more than Republicans will have. And even if they had that many, Barry would simply veto the attempt to kill the amnesty. Of course the media would also be playing their part to demonize Republicans for wanting to yank the SS cards and work permits, and make the illegals destitute. So, in other words, everything went according to plan and will continue to go that way. It's business as usual, with the NWO agenda moving full speed ahead.


By the way, here's a list of the 22 who voted Yea on the Ted Cruz point of order:
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Lee (R-UT)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

[Aaron]

militarized vehilcles admitted to be intended for Constitutionalists

What happened in my city of Spokane today:

Protest at the police dept out in the Valley regarding the use of militarized vehicles against people in Spokane. It will be show on this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH-F9b9H4vg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLMkkrX6Lw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDzuE2DZH8#t=14 listen to the recording of the Sheriff admitting this.

I hope everyone in Spokane realizes this is not some pro-2nd Amendment protest or issue but is really about the militarization of police for the purpose of squashing any form of dissent against the govt.

Just look at what is happening in Illinois - they're making it illegal to record the police out in public. Illinois Policy | An independent government watchdog...

So body cameras on the police - they can record you but you can't record them??? Well, that obviously won't solve anything in this case and if that kind of law is enacted in other states, the body cameras will just be used against people and the police's accountability goes down.

Can these militarized police vehicles be banned at the county level?

Looks like video ban law is still pending - https://www.facebook.com/energyrich....18101978396306

Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEFKhJHfy_k

Full clip in full context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=IwGjOY_Cq7s

[BroMikey]

Skynet Is Here

Hello Aaron

Great posts about real people and their opposition to this military take over of our country. I am afraid SKYNET has been here for 20 years now.

The joke is on us in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXeTwo9B-10

What happened in my city of Spokane today:

Protest at the police dept out in the Valley regarding the use of militarized vehicles against people in Spokane. It will be show on this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH-F9b9H4vg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLMkkrX6Lw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDzuE2DZH8#t=14 listen to the recording of the Sheriff admitting this.

I hope everyone in Spokane realizes this is not some pro-2nd Amendment protest or issue but is really about the militarization of police for the purpose of squashing any form of dissent against the govt.

Just look at what is happening in Illinois - they're making it illegal to record the police out in public. Illinois Policy | An independent government watchdog...

So body cameras on the police - they can record you but you can't record them??? Well, that obviously won't solve anything in this case and if that kind of law is enacted in other states, the body cameras will just be used against people and the police's accountability goes down.

Can these militarized police vehicles be banned at the county level?

Looks like video ban law is still pending - https://www.facebook.com/energyrich....18101978396306

Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEFKhJHfy_k

Full clip in full context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=IwGjOY_Cq7s

[rickoff]

as posted by Aaron: Just look at what is happening in Illinois - they're making it illegal to record the police out in public. Illinois Policy | An independent government watchdog...

So body cameras on the police - they can record you but you can't record them??? Well, that obviously won't solve anything in this case and if that kind of law is enacted in other states, the body cameras will just be used against people and the police's accountability goes down.

This Illinois "law" is definitely unconstitutional. A recent US 7th Circuit decision upheld the right to record as being a First Amendment right, and the SCOTUS has refused to even hear an appeal to that decision, thus upholding it. The Illinois "law" (statute, actually) is therefore repugnant to the Constitution and has no more effect in law than if it had never been passed by the Illinois legislature. I haven't looked into the Illinois Constitution, but the constitutions of most states also specifically say that any law repugnant to their Constitution is void.

A 2011 Boston case, Glik v. Cunniffe, held in the US First District Court of Appeals, upheld a lower court ruling that Glick's First and 4th Amendment rights had been violated by police officers who had arrested him for recording their arrest of a suspect in video on his cellphone. A description of what occurred, from case file text, is shown below:

As he was walking past the Boston Common on the evening of October 1, 2007, Simon Glik caught sight of three police officers—the individual defendants here—arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say something to the effect of, “You are hurting him, stop.” Concerned that the officers were employing excessive force to effect the arrest, Glik stopped roughly ten feet away and began recording video footage of the arrest on his cell phone.
After placing the suspect in handcuffs, one of the officers turned to Glik and said, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” Glik replied, “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.” An officer1 then approached Glik and asked if Glik's cell phone recorded audio. When Glik affirmed that he was recording audio, the officer placed him in handcuffs, arresting him for, inter alia, unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts's wiretap statute. Glik was taken to the South Boston police station. In the course of booking, the police confiscated Glik's cell phone and a computer flash drive and held them as evidence.
Glik was eventually charged with violation of the wiretap statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C)(1), disturbing the peace, id. ch. 272, § 53(b), and aiding in the escape of a prisoner, id. ch. 268, § 17. Acknowledging lack of probable cause for the last of these charges, the Commonwealth voluntarily dismissed the count of aiding in the escape of a prisoner. In February 2008, in response to Glik's motion to dismiss, the Boston Municipal Court disposed of the remaining two charges for disturbance of the peace and violation of the wiretap statute. With regard to the former, the court noted that the fact that the “officers were unhappy they were being recorded during an arrest ․ does not make a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right a crime.” Likewise, the court found no probable cause supporting the wiretap charge, because the law requires a secret recording and the officers admitted that Glik had used his cell phone openly and in plain view to obtain the video and audio recording.

The Glick case is quite interesting, because it cites several cases, both in federal courts as well as state courts, including Massachusetts, which have upheld an individual's right to record any "on duty" public officials, and have clearly stated that this First Amendment right to record is not limited to freedom of the press, but is extended to individual rights of any person to gather and make publicly available any such documentary recording of public officials who are acting in their official capacity. This right obviously extends to recording all public officials, be they law enforcement officers, judges, a town's elected committee members, or whatever. Having said that, though, there is currently a movement among such officials to proclaim that they are not public officials. I know that at first hearing it sounds quite zany, but in actual fact it is true. All those whom we commonly regard as being "public officials" (including all federal and state executives, administrators, justices, legislators, law enforcement officers, and bureaucrats) are actually just members of private government services corporations. Anyone who does not see how this could possibly be true can look up courts, sheriff departments, and any other supposedly "official" government agencies in a Dun and Bradstreet corporation search, otherwise known as a DUNS look-up. Another revealing place to look is the MANTA website's "Find a Business" link, where you can enter the same search info. The result will most likely state that the entity searched for is a "privately held company," as in this search for the Maine District Court in Lewiston, Maine. Or take a look at this MANTA search for the Penobscot County Sheriff's Office, in Bangor, Maine, which is also listed as a privately held company. The sheriff is listed as "Manager," rather than as sheriff. Try a similar search, or searches, in your area and I'm sure you will see similar results. The fact that the so-called Governor of Maine (actually a corporate CEO) appointed the so-called judges sitting at the District Courthouse, or the fact that the so-called Sheriff won his seat in a corporation election, through balloting by Maine voters who thought they were electing an actual sheriff, does not authenticate these impostors. These persons, including the so-called governor, are all private corporate administrators, not government officials. The STATE OF MAINE, and every other STATE OF _____ entity, are also private corporations. Quite the scam, don't you think?

Until recently, no judge or justice sitting in any court would have acknowledged that neither they nor any other court employees or law enforcement officers are not public officials, but that has now changed because of admissions of this fact in several court cases. Once such case, in North Carolina, involved Rodney Class, who is well known for his Talkshoe AIB radio programs related to many of the same topics discussed here in the American Ruling Class thread. Rod intentionally drove his vehicle without North Carolina license plates, and without a driver's license, in order to get arrested by Dallas, NC police so that he could proceed with a Right To Travel case calling for dismissal of the case against him. He then filed suit against the Dallas, NC police, and the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT). The NC Attorney General's office filed with the NC Superior Court requesting dismissal of Rod's case against the NC DOT, and the attorney for the Dallas PD also filed a request for dismissal. Both filings were made on the basis that the PD and DOT were not government agencies, but rather were private contractors, that the court had no jurisdiction, and that the Codes and Statutes which Rod had cited were therefore not relevant. In response to these requests for dismissal, Rod then filed an objection to the NC AG's request, along with a Quo Warranto action and request for a Declaratory Judgment. Rod's filing makes for some very interesting reading, especially since he cites Congressional authority for him to bring his case, not only for himself, but also for the People of NC State, as a Private Attorney General (PAG), and to be reimbursed for his time spent in that capacity if he prevailed.

So what we actually have going on are private corporations acting as private contractors to perform governmental services while occupying public office buildings, and the employees of these corporations posing as public officials and being paid by the People of their respective States. That is fraudulent, and the worst part of this fraud is the many private law enforcement agencies which have been established under the wings of their related corporate "alphabet agencies" like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA NSA, IRS, etc., etc., to enforce the Administrative Rulings of those agencies. To me, the DHS is the worst of these agencies because of their push to militarize municipal police forces through special training in riot control tactics and distribution to them of military grade weapons and vehicles. If you go into any police station in America you will most likely see a certificate of completed riot control training posted prominently on their entry wall. It is no secret that federal, State, and municipal authorities, aka private contractors, expect chaos to occur and have prepared themselves to handle it while protecting themselves from public outrage. The fact that DHS, a domestic agency whose purpose is supposedly to protect us, has enough ammunition in reserves to shoot every man, woman, and child residing in this country in the head 5 times is not simply coincidence.

[BroMikey]

Corporate Government

Great run down on all the fine details Rick, you are a genius on that stuff, knowing where to find it and how to fit it together.

Of course just about every magazine or Newspaper has written articles about Corporate Government Controls. I look at the comics because it helps me to see and remember the bigger picture.

When money rules people can get away with even murder.

[rickoff]

Great run down on all the fine details Rick, you are a genius on that stuff, knowing where to find it and how to fit it together.

Research, and writing about that research, is what I seem to do best. My aim is to always tell it like it is. I'm not infallible, but if I do say something which is incorrect then I will readily admit to the error and will change what I had posted.

I enjoyed some of your cartoons, but the one shown below leaves me to wonder what was really intended by the cartoonist.

I wonder if it is a pro-Democrat cartoon bashing those lobbyists and special interests who threw money into mid-term Republican campaigns in order to unseat Democrats, or if it simply condemns both political parties for allowing lobbyists and special interests to chart the course that will be steered. If it is the former then it wouldn't make much sense, because lobbyists and special interest groups manipulate Democrats just as much as they manipulate Republicans. If it is the latter, then why the reference to Democrats "quitting in frustration?" Some Democrats did choose to quit and leave, but it wasn't out of frustration over gridlock. It was simply a better choice than to be defeated at the polls. Congressional gridlock is really just a show that Congress puts on to make Democrat and Republican voters think that their chosen party is simply doing their best to oppose the other party's agenda. I would be very pleased to see real gridlock in Congress that would prevent Congress from passing any further damaging and unconstitutional legislation, since everything that they do only succeeds in raising taxes, increasing unnecessary and unsustainable spending, curtailing our liberties, and trashing the Constitution.

In reality, of course, both parties are pursuing the same agenda, which is nothing other than to tax and spend us into oblivion. Their $1.1 trillion CrOmnibus was a prime example, with countless politicians in both parties saying that they didn't like the package but that they had to compromise with the other party and agree to it in order to avoid a government shutdown. I wonder how many of the People actually bought into that ploy? There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Ruling Class PTB engineered this political "showdown" vote to occur at the last moment possible, produced the 1600 page package being voted upon so late that no legislator would have time to read it and actually know what they were voting for, and that every bit of funding included was designed by the PTB to promote their agenda rather than the best interests of the People and our Republic. The House and Senate votes to approve the package were just a rubber stamp approval of the Ruling Class agenda for which no other outcome would have been acceptable to the PTB. And yet still I wonder how many of the People actually understand that.

Rick

[rickoff]

Illegal immigrants began lining up yesterday at branches of the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to obtain driver licenses. This move stems from a 2012 executive order from Barry that granted amnesty from deportation to illegals that fit into one of the following categories:

• People younger than 30 who came to the U.S. before turning 16
• Those who have been in the country for at least five continuous years
• Those who are enrolled in, or have graduated from, a high school or equivalent program
• Those who have served in the military

A federal court ruling overturned Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's executive order which had prevented illegals from obtaining licenses, and Brewer has now appealed that ruling to the SCOTUS. Brewer's main concern was that the illegals would use their licenses for other purposes than driving, such as i.d. for obtaining welfare benefits, etc. In truth, though, the illegals are already obtaining all kinds of welfare benefits without having licenses.

To me, the main concern should be why we are doing anything at all to legalize anything that an illegal alien is doing in our country. Sure, we should be a bit more compassionate when it comes to young children who are brought here by their illegal alien parents, but at what point of age should that compassion be withdrawn? Does it make any sense to classify a 29 year old illegal alien as still being an innocent "child?" For that matter, wouldn't any teenager be old enough to realize that remaining in our country illegally is unlawful and wrong? And why the allowance for illegals who have been in our country 5 years or more? That's like saying that those who have been outlaws for the longest time deserve a reward for their continuous lawlessness. As a comparison example, let's say that two fellows break into and enter a convenience store to steal items found therein. The police respond to a silent alarm and arrest the two men, and later they go to court. They admit to their crimes. The judge notes that the youngest of the offenders had previously had no record of arrest or convictions, while the older offender had committed 5 previous robberies - at the same store! The judge then sentences the younger offender to prison time, and sets the repeat offender free. That, of course, would be ludicrous, but that is exactly what this 2012 amnesty, as well as the 2014 amnesty, is doing.

Incidentally, an AP reporter who talked to driver license applicants lined up at an Arizona DMV yesterday found that many of the applicants were already driving without licenses! I guess that shouldn't surprise us, as everything these folks do here is illegal and they obviously have no regard for our laws. As the reporter noted:

People lined up early at a Motor Vehicle Division office in Phoenix and cheered when the doors opened. They said they were excited about getting a license after driving to their jobs without one and fearing they would be pulled over.


"It's going to be ... peace of mind knowing that I'm legally allowed to drive now, not having to watch over my back and think of, 'Oh am I going to get pulled over and get a ticket, get my car towed, and how am I going to get to work the next day,'" said Jose Cazares, 21.

[aljhoa]

Al