"Once you realize your government’s sole purpose is to reserve murder of you and your family as its sacred task depending on your lack of fealty and obedience, everything sort of falls into place on why governments throughout the ages have been so murderous at home and abroad". William Buppert
Government More Likely to Kill Your Kids Than a School Shooter Is
By Thomas Hochmann December 14th, 2013
In light of the sensationalist news coverage of yesterday's Arapahoe High School shooting, I thought it would be fun to look at some actual facts
about school shootings. I know, I know... It's so old fashioned to
resort to such inconvenient things as facts. Please forgive me for
committing this grave sin against the journalistic standards of the 21st
century.
First off, there are 132,656 K-12 schools in the US. From 2003 to date, there have been 76 shootings
in US schools. 53 of those shootings resulted in deaths. Thus, over
this 10 year period, the US has experienced an average of 5.3 fatal
school shootings per year. Using these numbers, you can figure out that the odds that any given school will experience a fatal shooting during an entire calendar year are about 1 in 25,029.
Compare that figure that to the odds that you will die from:
An air travel accident (1 in 20,000)
Drowning (1 in 8,942)
Electrocution (1 in 5,000)
Falling down (1 in 246)
Committing suicide (1 in 121)
A car crash (1 in 100)
According to Wikipedia,
"schools will do a lockdown drill one or two times per year." In
anticipation of an event that has a 1 in 25,029 chance of actually
occurring at a given school, children have a 100% certainty that they will be terrorized by the school itself
at least once every year. On any given school day, there's at least a 1
in 270 chance that the school will frighten the crap out of your child
with a lockdown drill.
Schools don't have mandatory drowning drills (though death by
drowning is twice as likely as experiencing a fatal school attack), or
mandatory "how not to fall down" classes (100 times as likely), or
mandatory "don't get in a car because you might die" drills (250 times).
They don't even devote this much shock-and-awe theatrics to teaching
kids about cancer, which has a 1 in 7 chance of killing you (3,575 times
more likely than a fatal school shooting).
As a fun aside, it's worth noting that you have a 1 in 89 chance of being killed by your own government. That's right: it's 281 times more likely that your own government will kill you or your child than your child's school will experience a fatal gun attack.
Funny how the schools don't drill kids on how to evade the police or
withdraw their consent from government, both of which are far more
likely sources of death and destruction than any crazed civilian gunman.
It is indeed strange how missing pieces of a puzzle can obscure the entire picture until key pieces eventually fall into place. The most recent case in point is the revelation of spying by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US on upper as well as other levels of foreign government functionaries. The NSA, operating under a secret annual budget of multiple billions of dollars has routinely justified its secrecy and “black” budget status by playing the “National Security” card. One would be justified in wondering how the electronic interception and hacking of the personal email and telephone communications of the leaders of such nations as Brazil, Spain Mexico, Argentina, Germany and France impacts US “national security”. The question now becomes: what nation has the US omitted from its intelligence gathering operations? This humble correspondent though lacking smoking-gun evidence is willing to bet the rent money that US government spying for the purpose of blackmail includes Sweden.
In 2010 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange became the focus of US politicians’ outrage over publications that among other embarrassments, the US military has been engaging in what can be characterized as war crimes.
In July of that Year Army private Bradley Manning was arrested and charged with being the source of the leaked documents to Assange’s organization. Manning, whose conscience was apparently troubled by some of these events as well as being plagued by psychological issues which should have precluded him from any sensitive military assignment was arrested and after 400+ days of brutal torture-like confinement, brought to trial for the whistle-blowing leaks.
In the meantime, during a publicity seminar in Sweden during August of 2010 Assange “unluckily” ran afoul of Swedish authorities for what this writer would characterize as a “groupie tryst gone bad”.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden on a speaking trip partly arranged by "Miss A", a member of a political party. He had never met her before, but had arranged that he would stay in her apartment while she was out of town. Days later, they reportedly had sex.
Three days later and still in Sweden, Assange met another woman, "Miss W", at another seminar. Again, he went back to her home and again, they are said to have had sex.
The two women then made contact and discussed aspects of the encounter. Both women reportedly said that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual and that Assange had deceived them about the use of condoms [and initially simply that Mr Assange be required to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases].
The complaint by the two women to the Swedish police was initially investigated by Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné of Chefsåklagare who, as a result, stated: “I don't think there is reason to suspect that he [Assange] has committed rape." This is the juncture at which one may be excused for beginning to suspect “influence by mysterious/external forces” (as the result of pressure exerted by way of blackmail?). The Swedish national prosecution authority now alleged: “Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued the investigation.”
On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny [unexpectedly?] decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.
On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He [had] left Sweden on 27 September 2010.
The subsequent complaint resulting in “the investigation of a MISDEMEANOR charge” for Assange’s Extradition from the UK is virtually without precedent, especially when “Assange's British lawyer, Mark Stephens, said "his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or at Scotland Yard or via video, but that the offer had not been taken up.” Assange went so far as to agree to returning to Sweden for questioning if he could receive diplomatic assurance from that country that he would not be handed over to US authorities.
Predictably the Swedes declined to provide such assurances. Indeed, the reason revealed by a press report in Sweden:
Julian Assange has always been available for questioning in London
When I read the preliminary investigation of Assange's "Sex Crimes" I understand why police and prosecutors did not go to London to question him. If they did it would close the investigation with the clear conclusion: No Crime!
This entire issue must now be viewed in light of the ongoing Snowden revelations of the ubiquitous global capture of private communications by the National Security Agency and the other extra legal actions by so called US “allies” such as the forcing of a Bolivian presidential aircraft to land and be searched in Austria on the suspicion that the whistleblower/fugitive Snowden might be aboard.
The latest brouhaha was based on the fact that the NSA has been spying on senior German and French officials. These German and French officials are fully aware of the spying capacity of the United States government, and especially the NSA. The thought that these revelations are news to foreign leaders is naïve. What is disturbing to the foreign leaders is that their own domestic populations are finding out how subservient the leaders have been to the United States government, and how defenseless all domestic populations really are. It is obvious that if the NSA can spy on Angela Merkel, it can spy on anybody in Germany. [or anywhere else].
Indeed, one (conspiracy theorist) source has speculated that the chief justice of the US Supreme Court may have been blackmailed into his unexpected decision to uphold the clearly unconstitutional ObamaCare outrage.
Welcome one and all to the ubiquitous police state USSA.
Let us try, through the use of logic, to follow the rationale for going to war with Syria. Never mind that our "fearless leaders" refer to the action as one of limited scope with no so-called "boots on the ground". If ANY nation committed such acts against the US they would be categorized as aggressors pure and simple.
In any event, it is alleged that the Assad government which is engaged in a civil war has used poison gas on the "innocent" citizenry of that hapless nation. Never mind that the US intelligence "community" caught in perjury has classified the "evidence" it has allegedly obtained of such outrage as "secret" and will only reveal it to lying political hacks members of Congress who are in turn expected to convince the US citizenry of the need to wage a war which will result in the further slaughter of those "innocent" citizens. Never mind the credible evidence that the "rebels" themselves are the likely perpetrators of the chemical weapons outrage.
Jon Rappoport lays out the top nine real reasons for going to war with the Assad regime in Syria:
One: Give the appearance of unifying the country behind the President, who “did his job the right way,” by going to Congress for approval. This elevates Obama’s ratings and, by inference, suggests that his other programs should be accorded more merit. A wartime president always gains more support.
Two: Give the people an adrenaline rush. The effect should never be underestimated. Cleanses the pores, cleans the slate, and relieves frustration by proxy, temporarily…if you have very little access to your cerebral functions.
Three: In this case, winning Congressional approval reinstates the illusion, for a few moments, that we are a Constitutional Republic, with a government dedicated to justice.
Four: Help fulfill the long-planned US-Israeli agenda of destabilizing Syria and causing it to partition into warring and chaotic ethnic factions.
Five: Stop the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Syria, which would boost Iran’s economy by sending Iranian gas to Europe. Iran’s economy must be torpedoed.
Six: Send a message throughout the Middle East that the US is all-powerful and the dollar must remain the reserve currency in all oil transactions.
Seven: Feed the US military-industrial complex, which demands wars.
Eight: Aid the long-term goal of Globalism/Free Trade, which involves putting the entire Middle East into unresolvable debt and suffering…and then coming in with outside elite bankster financing, to rebuild the entire region and own it, lock, stock, and barrel.
Nine: Distract Americans from a number of scandals, including: Benghazi, Fast&Furious, IRS non-profit division crimes, NSA spying, the continuing failed war in Afghanistan, and a tanking domestic economy with more and more people living below the poverty line.
None of these reasons has anything to do with “punishing Assad for using chemical weapons.” In any case, that whole scenario has been thrown into extreme doubt.
Late breaking news informs us that our esteemed Leader will "consult" with Congress when it reconvenes after the holiday weekend on how to proceed against Syria over that nation's alleged use of chemical weapons within its own borders.
"The chart is a spin-off of the most amazing letter to the editor ever written, which appeared in Thursday's Financial Times. It also explained the entire Middle East, in a few short sentences. Here they are:
Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!
Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
We just recently returned from a 5500 mile cross country road trip from north Georgia to the west coast and back. We have been doing these trips semi regularly since the middle 1980s to maintain contact with family and friends. Leonidas refuses to run the TSA gauntlet at the nation's airports. During the last 5 years the changes, I should say the deterioration of the quality of life, in middle America have been impossible to ignore. We endeavor as much as possible to avoid the large metropolitan centers and the interstate highway systems.
Beginning in 2010 we found it to be nearly impossible to avoid being stopped by the local or state traffic police for various infractions; usually such heinous crimes as failure to secure a seat belt or for proceeding at 4 miles per hour over a ridiculously low and recently reposted speed limit along a sparsely traveled rural highway.
Regular readers of this humble bolgster are aware that he is a retiree from the profession formerly known as "peace" officer but commonly referred to of late as "law enforcement". For that reason, a road tax invoice traffic citation is rarely issued unless of course such transgression is perpetrated within the borders of Colorado. Extra care must be exercised along surface roads which cross state lines as posted speed limits for the obvious purpose of revenue generation will change abruptly even as highway conditions remain unchanged.
In spite of media attestations to an improvement in the official economic statistics regarding the general economy, subsequent journeys through smallish towns in such states as Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia reveal the proliferation of closed and or abandoned homes and businesses. Although anecdotal, these conditions are nevertheless astounding. Indeed, as our vehicle requires being refilled with diesel fuel at 500 mile intervals the closing of former fuel stations now requires either an on board emergency supply or a recalculation of truck stop locations.
The descent of our formerly prosperous nation into conditions formerly evinced in the third world we have visited while cruising aboard our sailboat is troubling. These conditions are not only evident in the observable living conditions of the populace but the attitudes of the ruling bureaucracy. As an example I refer to the stationing of 4 sandinista soldiers at traffic intersections in Nicaragua to enforce the 4 way stop signs. Vehicles were required to come to a full stop at the intersection. If a driver's front tires touched the limit line the soldier ordered her to reverse and stop short of the line before proceeding. This procedure of course did not apply to official government or Communist party vehicles.
We now note that our formerly prosperous and "free" nation not only exhibits the economic characteristics of a banana republic but the political practices as well. Although the legal niceties are adhered to, the courts' proceedings and jurists are often "secret" as a matter of "national security".
In spite of the above, this humble bolgster remains optimistic of the final emergence of liberty in this fair land. This optimism is not based on any belief in a miraculous awakening of the citizenry resulting in the restoration of the republic. The return of liberty will be the result of the financial bankruptcy and accompanying default of various collectivist governments and the revelation that a society based on theft and violence cannot be sustained.
One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.
On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.
This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.
For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.
In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be.
I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.
The following is a statement written by Julian Assange on the (show) trial of Bradley Manning. Assange himself is a political refugee in the Equadorian Embassy in London. He is wanted for international extradition in a warrant issued in Sweden for "a date gone bad". The real reason for his persecution is his publication via Wikileaks of data embarrassing to US government functionaries including this video.
Statement by Julian Assange
As I type these lines, on June 3, 2013, Private First Class Bradley Edward Manning is being tried in a sequestered room at Fort Meade, Maryland, for the alleged crime of telling the truth. The court martial of the most prominent political prisoner in modern US history has now, finally, begun.
It has been three years. Bradley Manning, then 22 years old, was arrested in Baghdad on May 26, 2010. He was shipped to Kuwait, placed into a cage, and kept in the sweltering heat of Camp Arifjan.
"For me, I stopped keeping track," he told the court last November. "I didn’t know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages... I remember thinking I’m going to die."
After protests from his lawyers, Bradley Manning was then transferred to a brig at a US Marine Corps Base in Quantico, VA, where - infamously - he was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of his captors - a formal finding by the UN. Isolated in a tiny cell for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours a day, he was deprived of his glasses, sleep, blankets and clothes, and prevented from exercising. All of this - it has been determined by a military judge - "punished" him before he had even stood trial.
"Brad’s treatment at Quantico will forever be etched, I believe, in our nation’s history, as a disgraceful moment in time" said his lawyer, David Coombs. "Not only was it stupid and counterproductive, it was criminal."
The United States was, in theory, a nation of laws. But it is no longer a nation of laws for Bradley Manning.
When the abuse of Bradley Manning became a scandal reaching all the way to the President of the United States and Hillary Clinton’s spokesman resigned to register his dissent over Mr. Manning’s treatment, an attempt was made to make the problem less visible. Bradley Manning was transferred to the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
He has waited in prison for three years for a trial - 986 days longer than the legal maximum - because for three years the prosecution has dragged its feet and obstructed the court, denied the defense access to evidence and abused official secrecy. This is simply illegal - all defendants are constitutionally entitled to a speedy trial - but the transgression has been acknowledged and then overlooked.
Against all of this, it would be tempting to look on the eventual commencement of his trial as a mercy. But that is hard to do.
We no longer need to comprehend the "Kafkaesque" through the lens of fiction or allegory. It has left the pages and lives among us, stalking our best and brightest. It is fair to call what is happening to Bradley Manning a "show trial". Those invested in what is called the "US military justice system" feel obliged to defend what is going on, but the rest of us are free to describe this travesty for what it is. No serious commentator has any confidence in a benign outcome. The pretrial hearings have comprehensively eliminated any meaningful uncertainty, inflicting pre-emptive bans on every defense argument that had any chance of success.
Bradley Manning may not give evidence as to his stated intent (exposing war crimes and their context), nor may he present any witness or document that shows that no harm resulted from his actions. Imagine you were put on trial for murder. In Bradley Manning’s court, you would be banned from showing that it was a matter of self-defence, because any argument or evidence as to intent is banned. You would not be able to show that the ’victim’ is, in fact, still alive, because that would be evidence as to the lack of harm.
But of course. Did you forget whose show it is?
The government has prepared for a good show. The trial is to proceed for twelve straight weeks: a fully choreographed extravaganza, with a 141-strong cast of prosecution witnesses. The defense was denied permission to call all but a handful of witnesses. Three weeks ago, in closed session, the court actually held a rehearsal. Even experts on military law have called this unprecedented.
Bradley Manning’s conviction is already written into the script. The commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, Barack Obama, spoiled the plot for all of us when he pronounced Bradley Manning guilty two years ago. "He broke the law," President Obama stated, when asked on camera at a fundraiser about his position on Mr. Manning. In a civilized society, such a prejudicial statement alone would have resulted in a mistrial.
To convict Bradley Manning, it will be necessary for the US government to conceal crucial parts of his trial. Key portions of the trial are to be conducted in secrecy: 24 prosecution witnesses will give secret testimony in closed session, permitting the judge to claim that secret evidence justifies her decision. But closed justice is no justice at all.
What cannot be shrouded in secrecy will be hidden through obfuscation. The remote situation of the courtroom, the arbitrary and discretionary restrictions on access for journalists, and the deliberate complexity and scale of the case are all designed to drive fact-hungry reporters into the arms of official military PR men, who mill around the Fort Meade press room like over-eager sales assistants. The management of Bradley Manning’s case will not stop at the limits of the courtroom. It has already been revealed that the Pentagon is closely monitoring press coverage and social media discussions on the case.
This is not justice; never could this be justice. The verdict was ordained long ago. Its function is not to determine questions such as guilt or innocence, or truth or falsehood. It is a public relations exercise, designed to provide the government with an alibi for posterity. It is a show of wasteful vengeance; a theatrical warning to people of conscience.
Conspiracy to commit journalism.
The alleged act in respect of which Bradley Manning is charged is an act of great conscience - the single most important disclosure of subjugated history, ever. There is not a political system anywhere on the earth that has not seen light as a result. In court, in February, Bradley Manning said that he wanted to expose injustice, and to provoke worldwide debate and reform. Bradley Manning is accused of being a whistleblower, a good man, who cared for others and who followed higher orders.
But this is not the language the prosecution uses. The most serious charge against Bradley Manning is that he "aided the enemy" - a capital offence that should require the greatest gravity, but here the US government laughs at the world, to breathe life into a phantom. The government argues that Bradley Manning communicated with a media organisation, WikiLeaks, who communicated to the public. It also argues that al-Qaeda (who else) is a member of the public. Hence, it argues that Bradley Manning communicated "indirectly" with al-Qaeda, a formally declared US "enemy", and therefore that Bradley Manning communicated with "the enemy".
But what about "aiding" in that most serious charge, "aiding the enemy"? Don’t forget that this is a show trial. The court has banned any evidence of intent. The court has banned any evidence of the outcome, the lack of harm, the lack of any victim. It has ruled that the government doesn’t need to show that any "aiding" occurred and the prosecution doesn’t claim it did. The judge has stated that it is enough for the prosecution to show that al-Qaeda, like the rest of the world, reads WikiLeaks.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people," wrote John Adams, "who have a right and a desire to know.”
When communicating with the press is "aiding the enemy" it is the "general knowledge among the people" itself which has become criminal. Just as Bradley Manning is condemned, so too is that spirit of liberty in which America was founded.
In the end it is not Bradley Manning who is on trial. His trial ended long ago. The defendent now, and for the next 12 weeks, is the United States. A runaway military, whose misdeeds have been laid bare, and a secretive government at war with the public. They sit in the docks. We are called to serve as jurists. We must not turn away.
Free Bradley Manning.
A tip of the boonie hat and many thanks to Robert Wenzel for permission to repost this message
On May 30th an ambulance was caused to stop, in the middle of the emergency transport to the hospital of a suspect who had been shot by police. The ambulance, operated by the Washington, DC Fire Department (Medic 19) was powered by a diesel engine equipped with an EPA mandated device which shuts the engine off when for any reason exhaust emissions fail to comply with government standards. The patient was pronounced dead at the hospital when he arrived there after being transferred to another ambulance. Asphyxiation has been ruled out as the cause of the patient's death.
DC Deputy Fire Chief John Donnelly says his department's challenge is to work within the federal agencies restrictions.
We should all feel relieved and safer as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Today is the legally designated Monday set aside mainly as a late Spring paid non-working day for most Americans to engage in seasonally appropriate outdoor diversions. This humble blogster thought it appropriate to urge his fellow citizens to spend a few minutes being reminded of some things of which our society has become bereft:
On this Memorial Day it is appropriate to memorialize a number of long-dead American institutions (RIP). The first would be the main principles of the Declaration of Independence, beginning with the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The Lincoln administration destroyed that principle long ago when it responded to the withdrawal of consent by eleven Southern states by waging total war on their civilian populations for four long years, killing as many as 400,000 Southerners according to the latest research, while bombing, burning, and looting Southern cities and towns.
The Declaration of Independence also declared in its closing paragraphs that the states were "free and independent" of any other government. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! At the time, "free and independent states" meant that Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, etc. were considered to be free and independent states in the same sense that Great Britain, France and Spain were free and independent states.
Treason in the U.S. Constitution is defined as "only" levying war upon the states, or giving aid and comfort to THEIR enemies. This of course is exactly what the Lincoln regime did, while redefining treason to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in the Constitution: opposition to the federal government.
The notion of "limited constitutional government" is also long dead, thanks to the victorious Hamiltonian nationalists in American politics. It was Hamilton himself who invented the notion of "implied powers" of the Constitution almost before the ink was dry on the original document. In Hamiltonian language, "implied" means "unlimited." Jefferson believed that the Constitution could "bind" the government in "chains." His nemesis Hamilton was of the opposite opinion that the Constitution could be used to rubber stamp anything and everything the central government ever wanted to do as long as it was "properly" interpreted by slick, conniving lawyers like himself (or by fellow nationalists like John Marshall or Abraham Lincoln). Hamilton’s view has prevailed, as was proven for the millionth time by Chief Justice John Roberts when he declared the Obamacare mandate to be a "tax" and therefore constitutional despite the fact that Obamacare’s proponents argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate was NOT a tax.
Also dead is the notion that there is such a thing as personal liberty – at least in the eyes of the federal government. The government now claims to have a "right" to spy on every citizen without a search warrant, to monitor the mails, bank accounts and emails, to grope and sexually assault each and every citizen passing through an airport, and even to murder American citizens with drones, on American soil, in the name of "security."
What’s left of America’s market economy is controlled, regulated, regimented, and suffocated by more than two hundred years of accumulated government bureaucracy. American businesses are regulated by more than 80,000 pages of fine print regulations in The Federal Register; by dozens of federal regulatory agencies whose agents often carry firearms to enforce their edicts against the citizens; and by hundreds of other state and local government regulatory bureaucracies that attempt to regulate and tax all aspects of business life. There are even local government taxes on the air above "public" sidewalks if occupied by a commercial enterprise. It is all a part of government’s relentless, never-ending war on capitalism and freedom.
Almost twenty-five years after the worldwide collapse of socialism the American regime has embraced socialist central planning with tremendous zeal. The primary vehicle for the American version of Soviet central planning is the Federal Reserve Board, which claims "authority" to control, regulate, and regiment all aspects of financial markets. It is devoted to destroying market interest rates, which are a necessary ingredient for real capitalism to exist, and believes in the "fatal conceit" of a centrally-planned economy. Its head, the bearded Ben Bernanke, even looks a lot like Lenin.
Also gone are the days when American politicians would be praised with words like "he kept us out of war" or took seriously Thomas Jefferson’s warnings about "entangling alliances" with foreign countries. The new foreign policy mantra is: "Do As We Say, Or We Will Invade and Occupy Your Country and Murder Your Citizens by the Hundreds of Thousands." "Soldiers" are not defenders of American freedom but paid murderers for the state. Endless military intervention all around the world has made life more dangerous and more insecure for Americans by creating endless enemies who resent it when other countries invade, bomb, and destroy their homelands. Nothing has been more destructive of American freedom than the state itself and its military-industrial-congressional complex. War is the health of the state, and an expanded state is always and everywhere the enemy of personal freedom.
Governments at all levels have been very busy for a very long time destroying American freedom and prosperity. A single day could never be long enough to memorialize all of our lost freedoms, but I guess one has to start somewhere.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo; professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland May 27, 2013
In a police state, citizens have no rights and can be ordered around at
the whims of a militarized police force whose goons run around in black
uniforms, terrorizing the populace. Welcome to Boston, 2013. The police
state is running wild in this city, and it has reached the point where
innocent families are being ordered out of their own homes by screaming,
aggressive, 'roid-head SWAT teams armed with overwhelming firepower.
"GET AWAY FROM THE WINDOW!"
One member of the local police aims his M4 rifle directly at the resident taking above photo from a second-story window.
Considering the two recent posts by my colleagues at Liberty's Torch, I must hasten to add my own humble view that from a practical standpoint the "terrorists" have succeeded in achieving their main objectives to wit: a de facto diminution of the traditional rights acknowledged by the constitution of the United States as delineated in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This, when considered in light of recent attempts to ignore the black letter provision of the Second Amendment leads me to conclude that for the most part the Constitution of our formerly freedom loving nation is more or less a dead letter only to be observed according to the federal courts lacking a "compelling governmental interest".
I would also note that public statements issued by the "terrorist" operatives invariably attribute their motives to the foreign policies of the government in Washington interfering in the internal affairs of various and sundry Muslim nations. None of these statements refers to, as former president G.W. Bush averred: "their resentment of our freedoms". Be that as it may, can a philosophy/"religion" fixated on a seventh century mentality have any expectation of a victory over western science and technology? Of course all bets are off if the West self destructs by following the path of corrupt collectivist financial, economic and political leadership so much in evidence of late.
Stated differently: the West will only lose this struggle if it abandons the strategy which has resulted in its dominance.
The hue and cry of the usual suspects whose agenda is to achieve the disarmament of the US citizenry subsequent to the Sandy Hook outrage is as predictable as it is disingenuous. Even those who should know better are contributing grist to the mill of the gun grabbers by accepting the premises of the government gun grabbers and their media enablers. This is evidenced by the following exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and the neocon Ben Shapiro. You, dear readers will note at 2min 43sec into the below video that Mr Shapiro is suckered into accepting the questionable premise/narrative that an "assault" weapon was used by the shooter Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook massacre:
This humble scribe has noted a lack of evidence that a so called "assault rifle" was in fact used by the shooter to accomplish his evil deed.
"It wasn’t reported until later that the police had discovered an AR-15 assault rifle in the trunk of the [shooters] car. This AR-15 was not used in the shooting, and police did not initially even know about its presence until conducting that further search."
To date, no videos have been released of the actual shooting event at Sandy Hook. These videos would settle finally the nature of the weapons utilized by the shooter. Nevertheless, no time was wasted by various government spokespersons and their media shills in clambering for a ban on firearms exhibiting scary cosmetic characteristics as well as capabilities of extended use between reloading requirements.
Spread this latest work by Matt Bracken and friends far and wide, especially the video:
Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It
includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass
murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by
religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes.
Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the
20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars
during that period.
The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between
1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the
country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who
had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two
million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without
water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who
took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the
democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.
The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside
Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at
least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the
sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and
force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way
trips.
Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the
democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet
Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to
have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had
ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.
In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own
“final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German nationalsocialists
simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas
chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class
enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor
camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal
working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.
Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the
forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent
victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million
people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor
camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions
more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.
Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night
without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks
knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully
aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a
large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I
strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)
Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its
usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer
needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged
individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender
their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of
force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is
shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the
road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In
Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the
democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In
Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic
preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to
lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical
fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their
Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to
round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant
resistance.
In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred
ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish
Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto
uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun
registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not
have been possible.
Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was
preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed
eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a
despised minority population.
During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny,
Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have
spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders,
and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities
to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.
The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a
centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the
Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not
“grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right
to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.
“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting
on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an
expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered
sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a
republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting
on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner
election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent
rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a
right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of
“fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside
the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When
that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable”
gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name
of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an
ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States?
Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or
Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration
lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and
American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the
20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently
portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as
“commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that
deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a
dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that
government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants
can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted
minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government
pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be
repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s
heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask
yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or
worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their
oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed
violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.
Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not
understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to
learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the
historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a
disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of
Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing
through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are
actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.
But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other
“progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot
execute their historically standard final solution to the
“reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a
thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans,
disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no
matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples,
Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed
quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a
socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government
gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B
“delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed
by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”
If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American
people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets
first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger
Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”
If many of you dear readers, like this writer, have been paying attention to the "mainstream" media recently you have heard that the US economy is in a slow but steady "recovery" from the financial crisis of 2007-2009. This drumbeat includes the recent data proving that the housing market has begun to rebound as evidenced by an increase in the prices of existing single family dwellings.
Our own experience here in west Georgia seems to refute such an assertion. Vacant homes in many residential neighborhoods in this area approaches 1 in 5 (20%). Two strip malls consisting of a dozen retail shops each which were completed in late 2009 and early 2010 remain completely vacant to this day with a recent sign at one of them announcing "free rent". (click on above image to enlarge)
Members of our family who have recently fled California with cash in hand have attempted to purchase at least a dozen properties listed "for sale" only to be advised by the agents that the properties are "under contract". Investigation has revealed that all of the properties are in the process of being transferred to the ownership of this or that limited liability corporation (L.L.C.).
...[W]hat’s fuelling the soft rebound in the U.S. housing market and home prices is something that’s never happened in our history. It’s not individuals buying houses who are moving prices and demand higher; it’s institutions. Yes, big institutional investors are buying houses—and in a big way!
The Blackstone Group L.P. (NYSE/BX) bought $2.5 billion worth of U.S. homes—that’s 16,000 units in total so far, with cash! In October of 2012, the company owned $1.5 billion worth of homes and was spending $100 million a week to purchase more! (Source: Bloomberg, January 9, 2013.)
Other companies like the Colony Capital LLC and Waypoint Homes are taking similar courses of action as the home prices increase. Colony Capital has already purchased 5,500 homes since April of 2012 and expects its investments to increase to $1.5 billion by the end of this year. Waypoint Homes has bought 2,500 home and plans to have a total of 10,000 homes by the end of 2013.
Indeed, a neighboring single family residence selling for $210,000 in 2007 and which stood vacant for 3 years after being abandoned by its resident owner was occupied a year ago by a "minority" single mother of three minor children whose rent is subsidized by the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development under Section 8.
As soon as the emerging glut in rental properties results in a lack of return to these corporate investors and the federal subsidies end as a result of the "Great Default", the fecal matter will definitely encounter the rotating ventilating device. I suggest that you gentle readers refuse to surrender your "personal defense" weapons. You may need them.
Since the unpleasantness last month in Newtown, Connecticut, our rulers and their myrmidons in the media, never wanting to allow a crisis to be "wasted" are all atwitter over the possibility of further voiding the second amendment to the Constitution by outlawing "assault" weapons. Indeed, the Vampire state in an apparent trifecta race with Kalifornia and Illinois has won first place by enacting a comprehensive attack on the ownership by mere mundanes of so called "assault" rifles including the AR 15 and all weapons of the Kilashnakov design. These scary appearing rifles, while having no functional distinction from ordinary semiautomatic weaponry are considered by our "Progressive" bettors to be evil by virtue of their "military style" and are therefore officially designated as "assault" weapons.
On the other-hand, the Department of Homeland Security via the General Services Administration has issued a solicitation for bids to supply 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons" for members of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement bureau. The weapons to be delivered are described as AR-15 platform rifles but containing the option of a selector switch enabling them to fire as either semiautomatic or full automatic as in machine gun.
Please note, gentle reader, that our government defines these items as "Personal Defense Weapons" whereas the version of this rifle sans the full automatic capability in the possession of an ordinary citizen is defined by the same government as an "assault weapon".
