The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

California Drought hegelian-dialectic






Al

[rickoff]

Rick with all due respect you're back peddling here because you know when I responded to your post #5872 and the last paragraph you were specifically talking only about gun rights and conceal carry laws in specific as soon as a jacket or clothing covers a gun it automatically becomes a criminal offense and then you expanded by saying "true criminals" will do whatever they please and that comment regarding true criminals was therefore in reference to gun laws and conceal carry. That in turn is what I was responding to, the conversation regarding gun rights and conceal carry and true criminals.

Your point is understood, and you are correct in your understanding that when I said "True criminals, of course, aren't affected because they do whatever they want regardless of any statutes to the contrary," I was of course pointing out the fact that all anti gun legislation only affects people who are law abiding, and affects them adversely, while true criminals are not affected at all by such legislation. It is the State, and the State legislators specifically, who have determined that when someone covers an open-carried weapon with a jacket that they somehow automatically become a criminal unless the person possess a concealed carry permit. I totally disagree with that line of thinking, and I believe that my post #5872 made that very clear. In your reply at post #5874 to what I had said, you appeared to have assumed that I was labeling you, and others who have been convicted of felonies, as "true criminals," and I assure you that was not the case. My intent in posting #5875 was not to "backpeddle," but to make crystal clear what my definition of a "true criminal" actually is. I stated that, "In my mind, a 'true criminal' is a person who knowingly, willfully, and intentionally commits an act that violates another person's natural right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness." Unless one falls into, or wantonly wish to place himself or herself within that definition, he or she is not a true criminal.

If I have a felony conviction and even after my conviction if I chose to own and carry a gun for my own protection against the laws then I am again a criminal and breaking the law. Never mind the fact there are no victims, I am not impeding on anyone else's rights, freedoms or their pursuit of happiness but simply exercising my own rights and even with all of that I am still going to be labeled a true criminal simply because I don't give a F*** what the laws say or anyone else for that matter.

Federal and State Legislators, LEO's, lawyers, and judges are wrongfully labeling all of the People as criminals if we violate any of the Codes, statutes, rules, or regulations which they write or enforce. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Law. Law, as rightly intended to affect us, encompasses only natural law, the original federal and state constitutions, amendments which are not repugnant to those constitutions, and the Common Law.

We can split hairs all day on natural laws or even constitutional rights and all the other stuff but the fact is the government does not care what anyone thinks or what the original laws were, all they care about is the control over the slaves and how much money they can generate from said slaves.

In that statement I totally and heartily agree with you 100% other than the fact that there is no lawful money. And that is why I am working, on a daily basis, to change that by informing all public servants what the true law is, what their true constitutional authority is, warning them not to exceed that authority, and holding them accountable if they fail to correct their behavior and choose instead to pursue a path of true criminal intent by warring against the Constitution and the People.

Best regards to you,

Rick
p.s - In a disinformation campaign backed by heavy spending by anti-gun groups, ads are running on Maine TV and radio stations in a relentless effort to convince the public that constitutional carry would be a huge mistake for Maine. The ads, found here, falsely claim that the proposed legislation would do away with concealed carry permits, and would allow criminals to carry concealed guns in public. The bill's sponsor, Eric Brakey, however, made it very clear that the wording of his proposed legislation neither does away with concealed carry permits nor allows anyone other than those who can legally possess a handgun to conceal carry. Other ads by these organizations, such as this one, are posted at YouTube, Facebook, and other social interaction sites, for the obvious purpose of instilling and raising public fear levels to build anti-gun momentum as a means of defeating the proposed legislation. Such hysteria seems to be working in their favor, as Democrats on the Legislature’s Criminal Justice Committee outvoted Republicans, 7-6, to table L.D. 652 for the second week in a row, despite the fact that the bill is supported by 90 bipartisan cosponsors.

Interestingly, while the Maine Police Chiefs Association is against the constitutional carry LD 562 proposal, the Maine State Police are openly supportive of it.

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day....

The following words were spoken by Senator Ted Cruz, who unsuccessfully attempted to convince his fellow Senators that approving Loretta Lynch's nomination as Attorney General would be a colossal mistake that would do nothing to restore the integrity of the office which has plummeted under Eric Holder's reign. Lynch is even worse than Holder, and has said that she sees civil asset forfeiture laws as a "useful and wonderful tool." In fact, she is the queen of unconstitutional asset seizures. Despite this, 10 Republican Senators sided with Democrats to confirm Lynch's nomination in a 56 to 43 vote, so what does that tell you? Cruz actually abstained from voting when he saw the treachery exhibited by those Republicans who were willing to abandon conservative and constitutional principles. Now we are stuck with Lynch at least until January 2017, and perhaps beyond.

“I wanted to see a new Attorney General who would be faithful to law, but her answers [during confirmation hearings] made that impossible. And I would note there is a difference. Eric Holder began disregarding the Constitution and laws after he was confirmed as Attorney General. Ms. Lynch has told the Senate that’s what she’s going to do. And that means each and every one of us bears responsibility… and I would note a particular onus falls on the new Republican majority. For several months, I’ve called on the Republican majority to block the confirmation of President Obama’s executive and judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the President rescinds his lawless amnesty…. The Republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination, but the Republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed. I would note there are more than a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as Attorney General, promising the exact same lawlessness, what’s the difference?… In my view, the obligation of every Senator to defend the Constitution is front and center why we are here. We have a nominee who has told the United States Senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the President of the United States. In the next 20 months, we are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more recklessness, more abuse of power, more executive lawlessness. Now more than ever, we need an Attorney General with the integrity and faithfulness of law to stand up to the President.”

[5150]

I was of course pointing out the fact that all anti gun legislation only affects people who are law abiding

There should not be ANY legislation regarding / regulating guns or gun ownership even for "criminals" because it goes against the Constitution and our god given right to have and bear arms. Nobody loses that right simply due to breaking a law regardless of what the legislators can rationalize in their bending of understanding natural laws.

There is a breaking point where people must stand up and say enough is enough and F**k this "law abiding" propaganda BS that has so many people enslaved.

If you want to label me a criminal, or a true criminal or even a half baked criminal so be it, just be aware I do not play around and while I will respect your rights I have no issue making sure mine are respected as well.

[rickoff]

There should not be ANY legislation regarding / regulating guns or gun ownership even for "criminals" because it goes against the Constitution and our god given right to have and bear arms. Nobody loses that right simply due to breaking a law regardless of what the legislators can rationalize in their bending of understanding natural laws.

I totally agree, and have clearly said the same myself.

There is a breaking point where people must stand up and say enough is enough and F**k this "law abiding" propaganda BS that has so many people enslaved.

Here again I would agree with you unless you are including those who support natural law and constitutional law (the only true Law) as being among the propaganda believers. The propaganda believers think that they are "law abiding" if they choose to obey legislated statutes, because they either don't understand that statutes are not Law, or do understand but fear the possible consequences of acting in civil disobedience to these unconstitutional statutes which LEO's and judges will wrongfully act to enforce. Civil disobedience to tyrannical and unconstitutional statutes which violate natural law is a duty of any people who wish to be free. Thomas Jefferson made this very clear when writing the Declaration of Independence, by saying, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their [the People's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..." This eloquent statement can be reduced to mean “When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.”

If you want to label me a criminal, or a true criminal or even a half baked criminal so be it, just be aware I do not play around and while I will respect your rights I have no issue making sure mine are respected as well.

I really don't understand why you are suggesting that I would want to label you as a criminal. I've made it abundantly clear one is either a true criminal, or not a criminal at all. Once again, as I said 3 posts ago, here is my definition of a true criminal: "In my mind, a 'true criminal' is a person who knowingly, willfully, and intentionally commits an act that violates another person's natural right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness." Unless one falls into, or wantonly wish to place himself or herself within that definition, he or she is not a true criminal. I don't think that I could possibly make that any clearer. From what I do know about you, 5150, I don't believe that your conviction resulted from true criminal intent, and thus I will not label you as having been a criminal. Notice I say "having been a criminal," since even if you had acted with criminal intent (which only you can say is the case or not), you have done the time for the alleged violation and have been released, which means that you are considered to be rehabilitated and of no further threat to society. Thus, I fully agree that, whatever the case may be, all of your natural and Constitutional rights should be acknowledged as being unquestionably restored. I'm all for the restoration of your rights, 5150, not against that, and I hope you understand this.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Regarding the Senate vote that I wrote about in post #5883 to confirm the nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, here is the list of the ten Republican traitors who made that possible:

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire), Thad Cochran (Mississippi), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Mark Kirk (Illinois), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky).

I'm disheartened to admit that one of these is from the state where I live, though not at all surprised as I fully expected that RINO Susan Collins would side with left wing radicals, just as she has done on nearly every other issue of importance. To have the Majority "Leader" cast his vote in this way, though, is truly an abomination (or Obamanation) and speaks volumes as to what we can expect from the Senate in any matter concerning Barry's left wing socialist Ruling Class agenda.

[aljhoa]

This eloquent statement can be reduced to mean “When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.”

“Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide, and slavery - have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience.”

- By Howard Zinn


Al

[5150]

I really don't understand why you are suggesting that I would want to label you as a criminal. I've made it abundantly clear one is either a true criminal, or not a criminal at all.

Rick

Rick,

My bad here, so let me apologize for the misunderstanding because when I said “you can call me a criminal or true criminal” I was rhetorically speaking or speaking to anyone out there in a “general sense” and not to you personally. So forgive me if my response was construed as being argumentative with you personally because it wasn’t intended as so.

Simply put If anyone wants to call me whatever they want so be it because I have no control over them or the labels society has such an easy time applying to others because in that regard I don’t really care.

[rickoff]

Thanks for the clarification, 5150. I appreciate that.

[5150]

Thanks for the clarification, 5150. I appreciate that.

No problem Rick, sometimes things get lost in translation without the proper voice tone or context.

I respect you personally and this thread and while I might seem to have a chip on my shoulder or even anger issues they are not directed at you personally or anyone in this thread.

Now back to the regularly scheduled show

[aljhoa]

I am pretty sure that most of the problem with water in california is being created politically

here is a good one to read
California agriculture's use of water is not the problem | Farm Press Blog
"Why isn’t the environmental community forced to defend its use of water allotments and practices like farmers?"

the-new-water-barons-wall-street-mega-banks-are-buying-up-the-worlds-water

Al

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day....

We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power, except that granted it by the People. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. - Ronald Reagan

Truer and timelier words were never spoken. Ronnie spoke those words many years ago as a warning, and a call to action by the People. Today we see the results which have occurred due to the failure of the People to stop and reverse the trend that he spoke of. To those who understand and agree with Ronnie's words, it has only become more and more evident, with each passing year, that the trend he spoke of is a tyrannical agenda intentionally designed to shred our Constitution, deny all of our unalienable natural rights, and establish a totalitarian government that replaces the free Republic that our Founding Fathers gave us.

Today our municipal, State, and federal governments expect us to believe that they hold all the power and can thus make and enforce all the rules that govern us. In truth, though, each individual in this Republic was intended to, and does in fact, hold more power than the entirety of the aforementioned governments. What the People must do, in order to stop and reverse the despotic agenda that Ronnie spoke of, is to understand how to exercise their power. As Ronnie said, "Our government has no power, except that granted it by the People." The only powers ever granted to our government, by the People, are the powers enumerated in our Constitution. Any other powers which the government claims to have are those powers which they have unconstitutionally granted themselves. Such powers are baseless and unlawful, are repugnant to the Constitution, and are therefore as null and void as if they had never been enacted and instituted.

The People, through their consent, created our government and gave it very limited powers, and only for the purpose of protecting and defending our natural unalienable rights and liberties. Consent is the key word to understand. So what, exactly does "consent of the governed" mean? Both Ballantine's Law Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary define the meaning thusly:

Consent of the governed: Agreement, approval, or permission as to some act or purpose, especially given voluntarily by one who is directed and controlled, regulated, influenced, restrained or managed.

As you can see, then, the government has no power to exercise any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution unless the People, or an individual among the People, voluntarily consents to allow such exercise of power. What most People fail to understand is that they have the power to deny such consent, but must either exercise that power or allow the government authorities to claim that consent has been implied through failure to object to their proceedings and deny consent.

To learn about consent, understand why it is so important, and realize the ways in which government officials, code enforcement officers, and judges, use trickery to obtain implied consent, thus gaining jurisdiction over you, please take the time to watch this video.

Best to all,

Rick

[aljhoa]

To learn about consent, understand why it is so important, and realize the ways in which government officials, code enforcement officers, and judges, use trickery to obtain implied consent, thus gaining jurisdiction over you, please take the time to watch this video.

Straight dope on the Jade Helm 2015


Al

[aljhoa]

To learn about consent, understand why it is so important, and realize the ways in which government officials, code enforcement officers, and judges, use trickery to obtain implied consent, thus gaining jurisdiction over you, please take the time to watch this video.

Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL

What is PASSENGER?
A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of PASSIAGIARIU9 880 PATENT Nthe performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at tlie point of departure of that means of conveyance. Bricker v. Philadelphia & It. It. Co., 132 Pa. 1, 18 Atl. 983, 19 Am. St. Rep. 5S5; Schepers v. Union I)e- 0 pot It. Co., 120 Mo. 005, 29 S. W. 712; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 90 Pa. 250; Tlie Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 14 Sup. Ct 4S0, 38 L. Ed. 3S1 ; Norfolk & W. It. Co. v. Tanner, 100 Va. 379, 41 S. E. 721. P
What is PASSENGER? definition of PASSENGER (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is DRIVER?
One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
What is DRIVER? definition of DRIVER (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is AUTOMOBILE?
A vehicle with four wheels and an engine. They move people and cargo around. Gasoline is the fuel for this transportation method. Some have electric or water run engines as well.
What is AUTOMOBILE? definition of AUTOMOBILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is TRAVELER?
The term is used in a broad sense to designate those who patronize inns. Traveler is one who travels in any way. Distance is not material. A townsman or neighbor may be a traveler, and therefore a guest at an inn, as well as he who comes from a distance or from a foreign country. Walling v. Potter, 35 Conn. 1S5
http://thelawdictionary.org/traveler/


What Happens If You Drive Without A License?
Written by J. Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff |
Driving is a privilege that Americans hold dear, so much so that some people will engage in risky behavior like driving without a license. Nonetheless, the penalties for doing so can be steep. They vary between states as each government creates and enforces its own motor vehicle codes. However, some broad conclusions can be drawn.
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/...out-a-license/


Al

[Danny B]

Peters Mountain

"scouring the records of Albemarle County and pulling the planning, construction and tax records for the land parcel, which is indeed described as belonging to AT&T, though it is listed as “vacant residential land” of no value."
"The building permits that have been submitted to the county since 2007— B200701545AC dated 07/03/07; B201302542ATWR dated 10/29/13; and B201402314AC dated 11/12/14 — amount to $61,124,583.00 in interior and exterior alterations"
"So this vacant residential land of no value, which has seen tens of millions of dollars in construction activity"
"The bunker is built. It’s regularly exercised. It’s ready to go, joining Mount Weather and Raven Rock and the Olney bunkers that dot the west, north, and east of the capital. As the government —and now the intelligence community—button-up to protect themselves during a disaster"
The Secret Mountain Our Spies Will Hide In When Washington Is Destroyed | Zero Hedge

The economy went off a cliff in 2007. It was resuscitated with the printing press. This produced a stay-of-execution, nothing more. It bought time for people to prepare.
"it’s undergone a $61 million plus renovation since 2007"

If Jade Helm isn't a wakeup call for you / us, what will it take to get people to wake up. GOV is becoming painfully obvious in telling us to get ready.
FEMA.gov Communities - CFGHOME
"Preparathon" is pretty direct.