The American Ruling Class

[Mad Scientist]

Oh we still have our freedom of speech. We can still picket our illustrious leaders and tell them what we think of them.


We just have to make sure we do it in specially defined "free speech areas" that are well away from them so that we dare not disturb them.

[chainmailleman]

Boston bombs said to be made from pressure cookers

"They can give me a cavity search right now and I'd be perfectly happy," said Daniel Wood, a video producer from New York City who was waiting for a train.

Anybody else taking notice of the MSM little psyop here? "I'll gladly give up my Constitutional freedoms for a little security".

Are any of you willing to let someone else have their way with you in a very degrading fashion, just to feel "safe"? (you will probably have alot more feelings than just "safety").

[aljhoa]

"The affirmative task we have now, is uhhh, is to actually, uhm, uh, to create, uhh, uhh, a New World Order." - Joe Biden, speaking at the Export Import Bank Conference in Washington DC on April 5, 2013

Speaking like a true zombie, and reading from a prepared speech, Joe Bite'em reveals the administration's primary goal.

What is the "right-of-way"?

Al

[rickoff]

[rickoff]

"Dirty" Harry Reid evidently thinks he has the 60 votes needed to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation, as it has been reported that he is moving forward to schedule a Senate vote at 4:00 pm today, something he surely would not do if he didn't think he had enough votes locked in. So right now may very well be your last chance to contact your Senators and demand that they vote NO to any and all proposed gun control legislation, compromises, or amendments.

Call the Senate now! (202) 224-3121

[5150]

"Dirty" Harry Reid evidently thinks he has the 60 votes needed to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation, as it has been reported that he is moving forward to schedule a Senate vote at 4:00 pm today, something he surely would not do if he didn't think he had enough votes locked in. So right now may very well be your last chance to contact your Senators and demand that they vote NO to any and all proposed gun control legislation, compromises, or amendments.

Call the Senate now! (202) 224-3121

doesnt mean a flip to me. I already have a criminal record and do you think my record is going to prevent me from getting my hands on a gun if I want one? heck no!

What these laws have done is just forced me and other criminals to go further underground in terms of getting and keeping weapons. for example not keeping a gun on your person or on your property as so not to be charged with possession. but make no mistake I will get a gun and use it regardless of what any laws out there say.

what part of "infringed" do they not understand? they cannot legally take away my gun rights (which they claim they can since I am a criminal) but all they are doing is making me more of a criminal when I stand up to their BS..

Most people dont see it that way but the day will come when they will and by then it will be to late.

[Jeff Pearson]

well said...and more laws just make more people criminals. More laws cause even more problems and usually solve none.

[5150]

People don't obey their respective governments because they love them. They obey their governments because men with big bad guns will either lock you up or shoot you dead for disobeying them.


thats whats it's come down to

[rickoff]

Here's a link to a video in which Gwen Olson, a pharmaceutical industry insider, explains that SSRI antidepressants are no more effective at reducing depression than placebo sugar pills. How astounding, then, that over 44 million people are hooked on these prescribed SSRI drugs, with a great many being school age children, and taking them for years at a time. And while these drugs do nothing to alleviate depression, they are almost certain to amplify any existing depression to dangerous levels that are not only dangerous to the persons taking them (causing thoughts of suicide, etc.) but also to others that person comes in contact with. SSRI drugs have been the common denominator in a great many teen suicides, as well as in mass killings, and yet as far as I know there is nothing in the gun control legislation about to be voted on that would ban, or severely limit, prescribing these drugs to school age children or any group of persons known to already be mentally unsound. Crazy, don't you think?

[rickoff]

Here are the US Senate voting results for the 7 amendments voted on today. Note that all were rejected. Two other amendments will be voted on tomorrow before the so called "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act" is acted upon. Barry was quite upset that the amendments voted on today were all rejected, especially the bipartisan Toomey-Manchin proposal, and of course tried to blame that on Republicans while calling this "a shameful day for Washington." Fact is, though, that several Democrats voted against these amendments too. The Toomey-Manchin amendment was voted against by 5 Democrats, including "Dirty" Harry Reid! Only 4 Republicans supported the amendment. Of course the only things truly shameful about these amendments, which all infringed on Second Amendment rights to some degree, are that they were admitted into Senate voting in the first place, and that a majority of Senators voted in favor of them. Shame on those senators!

Edit - In a show of extreme asininity, Harry Reid just appeared on C-span with several Newtown "victim" family members, and several other Democrats (including senator Manchin) and actually took credit for voting to support the amendment, an absolute falsehood! I heard him vote 'Nay' as the vote occurred, and he is definitely listed in the Senate roll call as voting 'Nay.' How does he get away with this crap?

Both "Dirty" Harry Reid and Barry asserted that 90% of the American public supported these amendments, which in itself is a humongous lie. Barry claimed that the reason why the Toomey-Manchin amendment failed was because of the several senators who feared voter retaliation, but that of course would be a joke if only 10% of voters were against the amendment.

[rickoff]

It is a wonder that, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, no one in Congress has yet proposed background checks on purchases of pressure cookers, or limits on the number of nails sold per package. After all, the two pressure cooker bombs caused extensive damage, including 3 deaths, 185 injured people, and around 30 of those injuries resulting in the need for amputations of shattered limbs. With all the police out on the street, a shooter probably would not have been able to get off more than 3 or 4 shots, so this just goes to show that simply made explosive devices, using readily obtainable items, present a far greater danger to the public than any lone gunman. And yet there is no legislation that could possibly have prevented Sandy Hook, nor the Boston bombings. Those who are hell bent on killing people, and killing or maiming as many as possible, will always find a way to do so regardless of any legislative attempt to curb such violence. That's a no-brainer.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

These polls they keep quoting, "90% in favor of Backround checks"; what the people being polled are saying is they are in favor of measure to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them; loonie toons etc.

Problem comes in the details. At what point do they say someone who got angry, because a auto-repair shop ripped them off, and so they yeled and created a 'scene' and police were called, and had to 'escort' them off the premises, (no arrest made) gets put on the 'list'? i.e. where do you draw the line??

And, as has been stated before, how much freedom are people willing to surrender, for 'security', (or the appearance of security!). And there will always be a certain %, (majority?) of people who, unfortunately, will 'take' that 'deal'!

Unfortunately, I think G.C. advocates (Reed, Obummer, etc.) may actually be laughing when the cameras aren't on; yes, they 'lost' the vote, but now they have an 'issue', to keep their 'supporters' ginned up, whereas the 'opponents' (gun rights supporters) will gradually relax. Well, at least now I'll (maybe) be able to get that ammunition I ordered 2 months ago, thats been on backorder! Jim

[rickoff]

Today the US House of Representatives will vote on CISPA, the so-called "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act." Without exception, all of the liberty stealing acts that our representatives in Washington hope to foist upon us are erroneously labeled as citizen protection devices. That, of course, is intentionally done to make the sheeple think that Washington is always taking actions that are in our best interest. In actuality, CISPA amounts to nothing more than cyber spying upon the public.

I urge anyone reading this to immediately phone your Representative and demand that he or she oppose CISPA, and any other legislation affecting the Internet. Use this directory to find your reps phone number. You may think it is a waste of your time to make the call because your rep has a record of voting the wrong way on other issues of importance, but if enough people call then your rep will listen. If you don't call then you might as well be giving your rep a nod of approval to implement CISPA, and to dream up other liberty stealing devices.

[rickoff]

Here we go again....

Remember how, after the 9/11 incidents, our "government" was quick to send all members of the Bin Laden family out of the USA, thus preventing their detainment and questioning as should have occurred in a real investigation? Well, our "government" is at it again, this time racing to deport the Saudi national who was said to be the original "person of interest" regarding the Boston Marathon bombings. That person is a foreign student from Revere, Mass., and is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi. Appearing on Fox News Wednesday night, Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

[rickoff]

Some very interesting photos of the Boston Marathon bomb sites, taken prior to the blasts, have been posted at this website, showing several possible suspects who were carrying heavy shoulder bags or backpacks. Of special interest to me were these two fellows, both dressed almost identically and obviously interacting with each other while also talking on cellphones. Are these men security personnel and communicating with other security personnel, or are they perhaps directing, or taking orders concerning the bomb placements? Or are they just a couple of well dressed, well equipped guys who happened to be there? In several other photos of these men, they don't seem to be very interested in watching the runners, and are usually looking elsewhere, possibly looking for others in their group who they may have been communicating with.


Also of special interest at the above linked website is this image of an anonymous posting which states some pretty damning things if true, and would support a theory that the bombings were a staged event having the purpose of inciting the public to a fearful call for banning reloading powder and severely limiting ammo sales, since the powder used in ammo could be utilized in explosive devices such as the Boston bombs.