The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

[dutchdivco]

SOS, (Same Old S*IT)

Bhengazi, 'Birther Movement', What really happened at Sandy hook?, we see the same techniques being used; discredit as nuts, or as 'just politics', or, as Hillie said "What does it matter?"
Its what you described earlier, Rick;

"Thing is, though, they will probably never release a report, and will expect that inquiring minds will fade away with time, which usually does hold true, since there will always be the next big story to come along and capture the public's interest."

And, they keep using these techniques because these techniques WORK!

After all, 'the people' only have so much 'RAM' in their brains; only so much they can focus on, at any one time.And so, 'we' are barraged with so much information, and so many things to focus on, that we recoil; we 'escape' into 'reality' TV, which couldn't be any LESS 'real', and become preoccupied with who's sleeping with who, in Hollywood, because at least thats something that doesn't have any REAL effect on us. Its 'escapism', another aspect of 'denial', that 'river in egypt', that our brains resort to, in order to preserve 'sanity'.

"Revolutionaries decrying wrongs, and demanding change on behalf of the people are inevitable dissapointed;
Its not that we have the wrong kind of Government, (or people IN the Government), thats obvious. Its that we have the wrong kind of PEOPLE.

"People' are shortsighted, narrow minded, distrustful and generally have the attention span of a GNAT! And so, NOTHING will come of Benghazi, immigration reform will do NOTHING 'concrete' to address the MAIN issue, (employment), only BAD things will come from 'Sandy Hook', and the Sheeple will continue to graze!
Same old s*it, brand new bottle! Makes me want to PUKE, but I'm all puked out! Jim

[Dave45]

ALL AMERICA MUST SEE THIS! Breaking Reality ~ 2013 [Video]

[rickoff]

ALL AMERICA MUST SEE THIS! Breaking Reality ~ 2013 [Video]

The video tells it like it is, without mincing any words. I think the men and women of our military services are wanting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, else why would they have thrown their support, in overwhelming numbers, towards Ron Paul, the only candidate who vowed to end all foreign military operations and bring the troops home. Unable to get Ron elected, the only viable choice for them now is to quit what they are doing and return home despite any orders to the contrary. Of course they cannot do that unless it is a move supported by a large majority of our troops. I just wish that our troops would wake up to that option, and take a serious look at it. If it is only a handful who have the fortitude to stand up against what is going on then nothing will change. It needs to happen in overwhelming numbers. And to prevent new troops from being sent to replace those who leave, those who are ordered to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan must stand up and say, "hell no, we won't go." If there are only a few then they will end up going to prison just like Terry Laikin did, but if there are tens of thousands who refuse then that would be an unlikely scenario.

[rickoff]

NOTHING will come of Benghazi, immigration reform will do NOTHING 'concrete' to address the MAIN issue, (employment), only BAD things will come from 'Sandy Hook,' and the Sheeple will continue to graze!
Same old s*it, brand new bottle! Makes me want to PUKE, but I'm all puked out!

I'm all too familiar with that feeling, Jim. The media has been relentless in pursuing their anti Second Amendment rights agenda, as called for by the Ruling Class elite, while ignoring the Benghazi, Illegal Immigration, and Sandy Hook scams. Every day, without fail, we see a new gunslinger story take over as the big news of the day. It's all intended, of course, to convince the public that "something must be done." In a nation of more that 300 million people, there is bound to be a new shooting story every day. It's not just a mathematical probability, it is a certainty. But how much talk is there concerning the number of people killed every day by drunk drivers? Those statistics are never mentioned. That number dwarfs the number of people killed by crazed gunslingers. A car is just as capable of being used as a weapon as a gun, and in the number of people who can be killed in a mere instant, a vehicle is far more deadly than any gun. Why is there no talk about making it illegal for anyone to own a vehicle which has the capability to kill several people if used as a weapon, whether intentionally or not? It's because nearly everyone drives a vehicle, and probably no one with a driver's license would support such a quest. That's the difference between cars and guns.

Have you folks noticed that Hollywood is also an obvious player in the anti-gun agenda? Just take a look at all the newly released movies and videos since the Sandy Hook incident. What you will be sure to notice is that a very high percentage of these revolves around gun play, and if you have watched any of these you will have seen that the amount of gun violence seen in these is overwhelming. Take the new Resident Evil flick, for example. It is non-stop gun violence from the opening to closing scene. You couldn't even begin to count the number of rounds fired, as it would go well into the thousands. It is blatant overkill, to be sure. Take a look at the number of video promotion cover photos which show someone holding a gun in their hand. Take a look at all the gun related, bloody movies being aired on TV, and being aired over and over again. And look at the very descriptive titles being used for new movies, such as "Bullet To The Head." To me, this smacks of a concentrated effort to feed the public so much audio and visual gun violence that they will burn out on it and say "enough is enough," turning their disgust for these movies into a general disgust for guns of any size or shape. GC advocates are using every pathway at their disposal to achieve what they want, and never before has this been so blatantly obvious in America.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Yes, I agree and its definetly an 'agenda', and they are really 'geared up'.

Last night on NBC Nightly news, they did their gun control piece. Thing is, in the intro they actually SAID; Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country; there is not even 1 gunstore in the whole city. Chicago has had over 400 gun deaths, just so far this year.",.... and then they waent on to show this woman who had 4 children, who are were killed by gunfire.
Thing that got me is, didn't they SEE the irony of their opening?

Doesn't the experience in Chicago SHOW clearly that one of the underlieing precepts of GC advocates, that legislation to restrict acces to guns, will inevitable lower 'gun violence' is fatally flawed?????

That, as GR advocates have long insisted, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will HAVE guns!

Awwww,.. again, it makes me sick!

Instead of restricting gun access, we should promote Birth control access!

FBI 'crime stats' for the past 10 years show a steady trend downward, in ALL categories, EXCEPT Suicides by gun.

Various researchers have3 tried to figure out WHY, on the basis that this is a good thing, so we want to know what we're doing 'right', so we can keep doing it, or even do more.

They have been unable to identify any specific 'cause' of this reduction in crime, but a theory is that increased availability of BC, starting 20-30 years ago,means that less 'unwanted' pregnancies has led to less criminals being produced.
And I think that the 'exception' i.e. suicides means we need to INCREASEaccess to BC, even more!

Personally, I think all 12 y.o. girls outa get implants, (BC), and only have them removed when they can pass a thorough 'background check'.

Yes, and you can take the analogy between cars and guns even further; SOME people 'soup up' their cars, so they can go 0-60mph in 4 seconds, and 0-100 in 10 seconds, or have top speeds of 150mph+. There is no 'legitimate' reason anyone needs a car that can go that fast. And, some small proportion of those who 'soup up' their cars in this manner, then RACE them on city streets, and occasionally kill people! But, we don't outlaw altering your car from stock, or outlaw the manufacture or seeling of 'aftermarket' products to increase performance; we focus on those small # of idiots who are 'streetracers', while recognising that many 'hotrodders' show their cars at car shows, or, when they drive them drive them VERY responsibly, (cause they have so much time and $ invested in them),and so are no threat to anyone.

Anyway, 'LOGIC' isn't involved here. GC 'advocates' believe what they believe, (I'm talking about those who are 'sincere', and are falling for the BS being put out by those who are manipulating them.

They BELIEVE (on faith) that reducing the availability of guns, will reduce the amount of gun violence. And, based on THAT belief, the BELIEVE that LAWS, limiting the availability of guns, will reduce gun violence.

And, because this is a BELIEF, that they take as an article of faith, no amount of logic, or pointing to examples, will make any difference!

You point to the Federal 'Gun Free School Zone' law, and try to suggest that if laws limiting access to guns WORKED, we would have NO incidents of 'gun violence' in schools, but it falls on deaf ears; they simply aren't going to hear anything which contradicts their core belief; its like trying to convince an adamant athiest of the existence of God, or a devout religious person of the absence of God;

[aljhoa]

But, we don't outlaw altering your car from stock, or outlaw the manufacture or seeling of 'aftermarket' products to increase performance;

The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative any emission control device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/mobile/engswitch.pdf

Al

[dutchdivco]

Al

First of all, there are PLENTY of things you can do, to 'soup up' your vehicle, to increase performance, without tampering with the pollution controls.

Secondly, yearly inspection of vehicles ONLY occurs in areas of high pollution; in my State, for example, only vehicles registered in the 2 largest metropolitan areas are required to undergo yearly emissions tests; so, you register your vehicle in one of the 'outlieing' areas.

Thirdly, if you are into 'stree' drag racing, your already disregarding laws, with severe penalties. How many have actually been charged and fined for this law? Probably about the same # that have actually been charged with carrying a firearm into a 'Gun Free School Zone'!i.e not many. Jim

[dutchdivco]

Actually, Al

This gets to the real HEART of the matter, which never really gets debated. I don't know if those 'promoting' Gun Control (Shumer,Fienstien,Durbin,O'bummer) REALLY believe this, or are just talking idiots, doing others bidding, or have a 'hidden agenda', but,
The people who LISTEN to them, (the 'average person', who supports GC), are buying into, or believeing a 2 part core bellief;
1) The availability of guns, within a given population inherently and even numerically increases the incidence of Gun Violence.
And therefore 2) LAWS, reducing the availability (often reffered to as 'easy access') will INHERENTLY reduce Gun Violence.

Your pos, and my responce, touches on the fatal flaw in 2); Laws aren't like orders from Capt. Picard; "Make it so". Laws are always inherently RE-ACTIVE, not PRO-ACTIVE, as is Law Enforcement.

Laws don't prevent people from doing something, they just say "If you do this, and you are caught, and IF you are convicted, THIS will be the consequence.

If Laws WERE Pro-active, the U.S. would be a 'dry' country, since prohibition, we wouldn't be still fighting a 'Drug War', for 50 years, and there wouldn't have been an incidence of 'Gun Violence' in schools 'protected' by the "Gun FREE School Zone" FEDERAL Law, since it was enacted in 1990.

But, laws AREN'T Pro-active, they are reactive. Law enforcement, as well; the Police don't PREVENT me from breaking into your house, (for instance) and stealing your flat screen TV, to feed my drug habit. They just say IF I'm caught, breaking into your house, and IF the prosecutor feels he has enough evidence to prosecute, and IF I'm not able to hire a 'dream-team' lawyer, and IF I'm not able to 'snitch' on one of my fellow criminals, in order to get the charges dropped, and IF I decide NOT to 'jump bail', THEN, I'll,......probably get probation, if its my first offence. HELL of a deterrent, huh?

THIS is the 'glaring hole' in the basic phylosophy of Gun Control, not that I agee with 1), either; just that its harder to logically 'disprove'. Its NOT the # or amount, or type of guns, or their 'easy access' or availability, its the hands they are in. Decrease availability to those who shouldn't have them, I'm all in favor of. Numerous examples of large #'s of guns 'available' to a certain population, with very little gun violence.Police, for instance, walk around carrying, all the time, and don't very often shoot each other. Military units, as well. Sure, there is ALWAYS the possibility of an 'accident', but thats NOT what people supporting GC are getting all worked up about; their focusing on the BEHAVIOR of a (relatively) small group, and even more, somehow projecting the behavior onto an inanimate object. i.e. "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."

So, I guess the debate boils down to GC advocates saying 1), and GR advocates responding Guns don't kill people, etc. and GC advocates saying 2), and GR advocates saying "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will HAVE guns", and thats just the way it is.Jim

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day......

"The antifederalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a "New World Order" (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government." - from a report titled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right" written by Arie Perliger of West Point's Center for Combating Terror.

Perliger also says that those who are opposed to gun-control legislation are wrongfully driven by the perception "that [such legislation] represents a breach of the Second Amendment and a direct violation of a constitutional right."

Perhaps the most repugnant statement in the report is Perliger's criteria for identifying the "dangerous" ideology of the anti-federalist movement: those who espouse "strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights."

The very ideas which Perliger vilifies were the same sentiments held by the American Founders in 1776 and through the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! To see such crap coming from a US military academy, where every member of that institution has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, is inexcusable. Click this link to tell your Congressional representatives to investigate and defund the obvious misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund a report which lists anyone with conservative, patriotic values, as being a potential terrorist.

[rickoff]

How much Obmacare will cost

In a final regulationlowest tier

[Mad Scientist]

Perliger also says that those who are opposed to gun-control legislation are wrongfully driven by the perception "that [such legislation] represents a breach of the Second Amendment and a direct violation of a constitutional right."

Wasn't it Hitler who said some thing along the line if you want people to believe a lie, tell them a really big lie.

[rickoff]

Wasn't it Hitler who said some thing along the line if you want people to believe a lie, tell them a really big lie.

Yes, something like that, MS. It was something he wrote in Mein Kampf, and it went like this:

In actuality, Hitler wrote this as an accusation against Jews and the Vienna press of using this tactic, never actually admitting that he often used it himself.

[aljhoa]

In actuality, Hitler wrote this as an accusation against Jews and the Vienna press of using this tactic, never actually admitting that he often used it himself.

The following is a short clip from the History Channel special "Hitler's Family". Adolf Hitler ancestory remains shrouded in history yet there is evidence that Hitler may infact have been of jewish decent.Briefly after Hitler became chancellor of Germany his political opponent did some digging into his family's past.Apparently the jewish sirname Salom was connected with the Hitler family.
Was Hitler jewish? - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick, "human Nature?"

It often SEEMS to be the case, that 'we' (humans) accuse our 'opposition' of that which 'we' ourselves, are doing.
Don't know WHY this is so,....(subconscious?), but it certainly seems common.

Notice the recent comments by Shumer, etc., that the NRA is using this issue to raise $, by causing 'unrealistic' fear in Gun owners, that 'we want to take away their guns'; in fact, its obvious that GC 'advocates' like Schumer, are using Sandy hook as a 'fund-raiser', by instilling FEAR in non-gun owners, in order to raise 'enough $ to counter-act the 'unbelievble amount of influence' of the NRA.

So, accuse your 'enemy' of that which you, yourself, are doing. Is it a deliberate 'tactic', or unconscious, or some of each? I don't know, (or care, really) but it certainly is common.

As a 'Gun Rights' supporter, I got to say I'm not very 'happy' with the NRA, who is supposed to be advocating and lobbying for the position I support.

I think thats the underlieing source of some of my recent 'rants; the NRA is being 'reactive' rather than 'proactive', and always HAS been, and seems to have a 1 track tape, they play over and over; the second amendment.

Its not enough to 'talk' to your base; there are a certain % ot the population that feel strongly on each side of this issue; I'm talking about the kind of people who would have said, say 6-12 months ago, that 'Gun Control was a MAJOR issue, for them',...and then there are 'the rest'; kind of the equivalent of 'swing voters', thise who feel LESS strongly (for OR against) GC.

2nd amendment arguments MAY 'sway' someof them, butmay leave others cold. Instead of arguing about high capacity magazines and assault weapons, I would LIKE to see the debate focus on the underlieing BILIEF of GC; this notion that increased 'availabilty' of guns directly corelates with increased gun violence, and therefore, legislation restricting such 'availability' will inevitably reduce gun violence. It is, to me, an inherently flawed belief, in BOTH parts, and I think if we 'argued' about the merits of this underlieing belief, MANY would see the fallacy. And if this underlieing belief is fatally flawed, (particularly in the 2nd part), the whole argument FOR GC is put in SERIOUS doubt. But, you can't 'sound bite it, other than to say "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people", (first part) and "When you outlaw guns, only OUTLAWS will HAVE guns", (second part).

Would LIKE to see the debate presented in a more complete manner, thats all.

Its like the current discussions regarding immigration; my 'side' has been holding out, emphasising 'border security'before any 'amnesty' or 'path to citesenship'; thing is, the MAIN flaw of the 1986 'Comprehensive' Immigration law was not that the border security wasn't increased, (although that WAs a problem). The MAIN way that the law 'fell apart' was in WORKPLACE enforcement; THAT is the INCENTIVE for illegal immigration. ANd although the 1986 law HAD workplace enforcement provisions, they weren't enforced, in large part due to Chamber of commerce lobbying, to not fund it.

I think 'we' need to create a department of immigration, modeled after OSHA, and for the same reason. OSHA is self-funded; they are NOT dependent on continued funding from Congress. Their whole operation is totally funded from the fines they collect,for violations; let employers who are 'caught' employing 'undocumented workers' (E-verify could be a pre-emptive defence) pay a hefty fine, which would fund the enforcement 'arm' of the INS.

In addition, they really need to improve/streamline the 'legal' path; if you move 6 times, in 12 months, across the U.S, Publishers Cl4aringhouse, etc. can follow you (mail) every step of the way. However, if you are applying for citesenship, and going through the process, you better NOT move, even once; no matter how many 'change of address' cards you fill out, INS will inevitably send you a notice of hearing, to your old address, and if you fail to appear, (cause you didn't know) you start all over again!Stupid, and typical beurocratic bungling.

Anyway, those who are argueing (more or less) my position on immigration are also doing a piss-poor job of it, by mentioning (if, at all) WORKPLACE enforcement, as an after-thought. Jim