The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes of the day.....

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."- Barry Soetoro, in a televised September 9, 2008 speech at Lebanon, Virginia
Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian

[aljhoa]

"amazing" world through the hands of a "true artist"
7th Annual Helpmann Awards(2007)- What A Wonderful World - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

WTF? "Inconvenient truths'

By far and away, the VASY majority of gun-related homicides being investigated by Police, in the u.S., involve a HANDGUN; most commonly, a 9mm semi-automatic PISTOL. Same thing applies to 'Police involved shootings', i.e. where people are shooting AT the Police.

Contrary to what the media would have us believe, ALL crime statistics, steadily and for the last 10 years, have been going down. Likewise, all VIOLENT crime statisitcs, (except suicide).

There HAS been a 'spike', in certain areas; inner cities, in which the perpetrator, (and usually) the victim are 18-24 y.o. males. i.e. 'GangBangers', usually, but unfortunately not always, shooting each other.

These 'psycho' mass shootings NEVER involve gangbangers, however, and the issues involved in trying to reduce the one,have little to do with issues involved in reducing the other. Likewise., suicide is a seperate issue entirely, with its own set of factors.

There MAY be some 'overlap' in the area of MentalHealth, and culture, and how we are, (or are not) raising the next generation. But 'assault weapons has nothing to do with ANY of this. Jim

[ashtweth]

Dutch, Rick /ALL

Check it out, Australian politician
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome - YouTube

So busy these days guys hope all are well

Ash

[ashtweth]

By far and away, the VASY majority of gun-related homicides being investigated by Police, in the u.S., involve a HANDGUN; most commonly, a 9mm semi-automatic PISTOL. Same thing applies to 'Police involved shootings', i.e. where people are shooting AT the Police.

Contrary to what the media would have us believe, ALL crime statistics, steadily and for the last 10 years, have been going down. Likewise, all VIOLENT crime statisitcs, (except suicide).

There HAS been a 'spike', in certain areas; inner cities, in which the perpetrator, (and usually) the victim are 18-24 y.o. males. i.e. 'GangBangers', usually, but unfortunately not always, shooting each other.

These 'psycho' mass shootings NEVER involve gangbangers, however, and the issues involved in trying to reduce the one,have little to do with issues involved in reducing the other. Likewise., suicide is a seperate issue entirely, with its own set of factors.

There MAY be some 'overlap' in the area of MentalHealth, and culture, and how we are, (or are not) raising the next generation. But 'assault weapons has nothing to do with ANY of this. Jim

Well if they want to blame the guns for the psychos, then they have to LIMIT (or eradicate) PSYCHE drugs, as suicides and shootings involve A LOT OF THEM.......Ask why they not talk about the drugs too

As

[aljhoa]

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome - YouTube
So busy these days guys hope all are well

Pink Floyd - Come Back To Life ( Lyrics ) - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Good point

Never mentioned. We KNOW, (because its right there, in the 'precautions' on many of these drugs) that SOME of them can cause 'suicidal depression' in people who otherwise wouldn't BE suicidal.
For instance, Lyrica is NOT a drug Rx.'d for depression; its for Peripheral Neuropathy, a nerve condition resulting from Diabetes, causes tingling and needle feelings in feet and legs.
However, it IS a 'psychotropic' drug, as are Rx. meds to help people quit smoking. And they have precautions right on the lable, saying they CAN cause people to have ';sudden mood changes, including suicidal thoughts'.

And, these drugs are in the same 'family' as SSRI 'anti-depressents' which ALSO have such precautions. IF a medication can cause someone who previously had no thoughts of suicide to have such thoughts, its certainly POSSIBLE that they may give someone the idea to do a 'mass shooting'.

And, since most of these guys have a history of obvious mental problems, someone SHOULD be going back and seeing what meds they were on, prior to their 'spree'. In fact, these meds causing suicidal thoughts is in a small subset of patients, most commonly,......Young MALES, 18-24!

Is ANYONE looking at this? Well, ARE they? The drug companies 'suppressed' admitting this suicidal side effect, particularly with young people, until they were forced to; IF they 'realised' their drug was causing people to go on shooting sprees, do we really think they would admit it????Jim

[rickoff]

On the 'News' last night. Today the Senators from Oregon and Colorado are sponsoring legislation which would legalize marijuana at the federal level, and TAX it. Enforcement would therefore transfer from the DEA, to,....wait for it,...the BATF! (which would the become the BATMF. They would be 'responsible' for collecting the TAX on M.J. sales.

Several states have decriminalized possession of marijuana in small amounts not seen as being intended for distribution, and some of these states have now legalized "medical marijuana" in order to control sales and rake in state profits. Colorado and Washington state have voted to legalize recreational marijuana, which is a step further along. In Colorado, for example, a person can legally grow up to six marijuana plants as long as only three of the plants would mature at the same time, and marijuana harvested from those plants can be carried about or gifted to another adult with no penalty. Places where this product could be smoked would be limited to non-public areas, mostly private residences, and any plants grown would have to be grown in enclosed, secured areas. These seem like logical and reasonable precautions, but any suggestion of taxing small scale production of marijuana for personal use is a bad idea. One can legitimately produce a reasonable quantity of beer or wine for personal consumption without paying a tax, and the same should hold true for marijuana. That's not going to stop state and federal agencies from trying to cash in on what would be a huge windfall, of course, so now that states like Washington and Colorado are legalizing marijuana, the feds only choice is to either fight those efforts maintaining that marijuana is still federally illegal to possess, or pass new laws which allow legalization if federal controls are obeyed. Such controls would very likely include taxation and tightened restrictions for growing and distribution. Since personal growing of marijuana plants would be nearly impossible to monitor effectively, I wouldn't be surprised to see regulations come along that would require all marijuana for recreational use to be sold at federal or state stores, where the sale price would probably be the same as a "street price," and then hefty state and federal taxes added. Those who produce the raw materials to be sold in such stores would have to pay whopping license and registration fees to legally grow the stuff, and those who transport between the grower and the store would also require shelling out big bucks to obtain the required permits. It all comes down to government wanting to cash in on huge revenue streams by controlling a plant that should never have been deemed illegal in the first place. Of course deeming it illegal was all part of the plan to immensely boost the "monetary value" of marijuana so that once they legalized it they could make immense profits by controlling the production and sales. Making the stuff illegal also made them money realized from fines and whatnot, but also backfired because incarcerations for pot "crimes" ended up costing way more than the fines that were realized from prosecuting "violators." If fines had been based on something like $25 per ounce for possession of more than one ounce, but less than 2.2 pounds (one kilogram), the states would have made out like bandits without suffering the costs of incarceration.

[dutchdivco]

Actually, Rick

I BELIEVE there are STILL laws on the books, 'taxing' M.J. After all, the Gov't NEVER imposes a 'temporary' tax, and at one time there WAS such provisions.

At any rate, they will more tan likely do it the way they did with alcohol, after prohibition; initially the tax is low; so as to make the LEGAL product even lower than the 'black market' one, hence 'drying up' the supply of the illegl product. I doubt that the tax on whiskey, right after prohibition was anything like what it is, today, for example.

Once they have 'cornered' the market, they can then begin raising the tax, with near impunity, as, like cigarette taxation, its considered a 'sin' tax.

I've HEARD, (could be false) that owning tobacco seeds is 'illegal'; THAT would be a way to keep people from 'growing there own'; it would be nearly impossible to keep people from brewing their own beer or wine, but notice making your own whiskey is illegal.

Anyway, Fiscal conservative who are also Social conservatives may have difficulty resisting this idea; a way to get more revenue!

In Az. we have a medical MJ law, passed by citisen initiative 3 times, blocked the first 2 by the legislature/govt., its finally in the process of being 'rolled out', and still much controversy. Users get a card, issued by the state.They then can grow their own, up to (I think 17 plants!) or they can grow them at a 'co-operative' with armed guards, advisors, and hydroponic equipment. And, they can buy it at 'disensaries', although why it can't be sold in drug stores I have no idea. Don't need to go to a 'special' store, to fill your Rx. for any other drug, so why treat MJ differently? More nonsense! Anyway, should be interesting to watch! Jim

[rickoff]

I BELIEVE there are STILL laws on the books, 'taxing' M.J. After all, the Gov't NEVER imposes a 'temporary' tax, and at one time there WAS such provisions.

Marijuana became taxed in 1937, but that was overturned in 1969 in Leary v. United States, and was repealed by Congress the next year.
The tax was small, amounting to only a dollar for anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. It was the fines of up to $2,000, and imprisonment up to 5 years imposed for violating the tax requirement, that gave this tax act teeth. It's interesting to note that three wealthy businessmen (Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family) had spearheaded the effort to pass the 1937 law, and the reason for this was to protect their personal fortunes. Hemp was considered an excellent and cheaper alternative to the materials they were so heavily invested in.

why it can't be sold in drug stores I have no idea. Don't need to go to a 'special' store, to fill your Rx. for any other drug, so why treat MJ differently? More nonsense! Anyway, should be interesting to watch! Jim

Actually, Cannabis products were sold at US drug stores before the drug became criminalized. My stepdad Albert was an ardent bottle collector, and was talking to a shop owner one day inquiring as to whether any of the old bottles from the drug store that once was at that location still existed. The store owner said yes, and invited Al down to the cellar, where he found a treasure trove of old bottles which still had their original labels and contents intact. The store owner said Al was welcome to take whatever he wanted, as he had been planning to haul the stuff to the dump. One of the glass bottles was a pint size container with a label that read "Cannabis Extract," and listed suggested dosages for a wide range of maladies. Evidently, Al was worried that it would be illegal to keep the contents that were in the bottle, so later dumped it out and refilled it with water. Too bad, as it would have been interesting to have it analyzed to see just what the strength of the solution actually was. I'm not sure what happened to that bottle, but think that my younger brother may have sold it to a collector sometime after Albert passed away several years ago. Albert told me that in his younger days none of the drugs now outlawed were illegal, and could be purchased at drug stores, usually in elixir forms. He said that one of the best places to find unusual antique drug bottles was by digging at locations where old outhouses once existed, as men or women who didn't want their spouse or children to know they were imbibing would drink the elixir in the outhouse and drop it down below, before covering it with sand or gravel.

[rickoff]

This fellow had the right plan on self defense

Here's a Las Vegas news report

[rickoff]

I love to see it when GC advocate Piers Morgan gets bested by someone he is interviewing, and here's a video

[rickoff]

The group known as Anonymous has been in the news lately after openly promising to wreak havoc on the US government and government related institutions. Their effort, called OpLastResort is said to be in retaliation for the death of Aaron Schwartz. In their latest attack, Anonymous hackers hacked into a Federal Reserve database during the Superbowl game and posted the information contained there onto another dot-gov website, the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center, an a page which Anonymous added the URL extension "oops-we-did-it-again." The database info contained names, log-in info, and home addresses of 4,000 bankers. Reuters news agency said the website was evidently a non-public site used to store a database for banks to use in the event of a natural disaster. While the hack was impressive, its too bad they didn't aim higher and release all the information that Ron Paul's Audit The Fed bill would go after, although who knows - maybe that's next. It's probably the only way we'll ever find out what really goes on at the Fed.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hey Rick,

It's amazing when Obama makes a nomination for the CIA intelligence office position opening by the name of John Brennan with questioning about leaks of sensitive information and U.S. spy activities from waterboarding they felt was illegal to the use of drones which Obama says is legal. All in a instant everyone with political inspirations and a few news media outlets all of a sudden has questions ....

Hear is a video some may have missed of Jonathan Turley on December 19, 2011 at C-Span ....

(starting at 15:50): President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just ... reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

Jonathan Turley:
- Is the second most cited law professor in the country
- Has worked as both the CBS and NBC legal analyst during national controversies
- Ranks 38th in the top 100 most cited 'public intellectuals' in a recent study by a well-known judge
- Is one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases
- Has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues
- Is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues

Surveillance and Privacy Issues - C-SPAN Video Library ( 43 minutes )


How long and what does it take for Americans to wake up or has everyone been unknowingly convinced, indoctrinated or subliminalized and near brain dead.

Glen

[dutchdivco]

Yes

Rik, prior to (I believe) 1915, when the FDA was created, to (ironically) stop the marleting of 'snake-oil', you could purchase Laudnum, (opium dissolved in alcohol), Heroin, morphine, etc. at your local pharmacy.
A 'prescription' was written down by your Dr., just to make sue you got the 'right' medicine, but you didn't have to have one, to BUY a medicine.

Ironically, we've now institutionalised the production and marketing of 'snakeoil', by 'Big Pharm'.

We DID have a news story reported here, locally. A man shot an 'intruder' who was naked, in his 10 y.o. daughters bedroom, 3 feet from her bed, at 3:00 in the a.m. Probably just going to put some $ under her pillow, as the 'tooth fairy', right? So, the stories DO get reported. But, do they have any impact?

The people Durbin etc. are speaking to, are not you and me; they are a certain demographic; those who are afraid of GUNS. I see them, when I 'open carry'; and go into grocery stores, etc. Many respond as if its not there, although they could hardly NOT see it, you can't tell by their reaction. Some even to respond positively; same non-reaction, except they seem to make an effort to make eye contact, and give me a little nod. But SOME, its very obvious; their facial expression changes, they stop smiling/talking, their body movements become stiff, and they get as far away from me, as quickly as they can, without running.
I see the SAME reaction, when I take my assistance dog into the store; many have no reaction, or a positive reaction, but some 'freak out' in a subtle way; the are AFRAID of dogs, pure and simple. Doesn't matter that she's wearing this bright red vest, that clearly states she is an 'assistance' dog, they are obviously terrified.

Anyway, its this group, with little to no familiarity with guns, or people who own guns, that buy into the idea that GUNS, inanimate objects, are inherently dangerous. As if those guns turned on their owner and shot her, then loaded themselves into the car, and drove themselves to that school, shot their way in, and shot thoise people. (Assumoing it wasn't a 'staged event', for sake of discussion) it was a PERSON that did all that. A nutjob, no less. Jim