The school parking lot and the black Honda allegedly driven by Adam Lanza.
January 23, 2013
By Craig McKee
It’s like a conspiracy theory on steroids.
Everything about the Sandy Hook shooting is more emotional, more perplexing, and more polarizing than any single “conspiracy” event in recent memory. Questions, theories, and challenges to what we’ve been told by authorities and the media are coming up faster and more frequently than we’ve seen in just about any other similar circumstance.
Confirmed facts are in short supply while emotion rules the day. Children are involved, so convincing people to question the facts is even more difficult than it would otherwise be. It seems that questioning potential conspiracies is something you can do as long as you keep your doubts in good taste. It’s hard to meet that standard when you’re questioning whether the mass shooting of children was actually a staged event (or at least featured more than one shooter).
Those who are usually allies in the fight for truth are finding themselves strongly disagreeing with each other over whether Sandy Hook was a false flag event or a tragedy perpetrated by one troubled young man. Some feel the holes in the official story are just so numerous that something is definitely up. Others think that 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy researchers are damaging their credibility by challenging the truth of this event. Still others think that only some of the points being made are damaging because they make accusations that are not proven.
There has been so much interest in the subject – and so many questions raised – that the mainstream media has had no choice but to take notice. Predictably, they have been on the attack, ridiculing what has come to be called (unfortunately), the Sandy Hook Truth movement.
So the question then becomes, when it comes to conspiracies, is bad publicity better than no publicity? That’s because the mainstream media is giving the emerging “movement” a lot of very bad publicity in recent days.
They have cherry picked statements from people like by Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy who has questioned whether Sandy Hook happened as reported. Tracy’s comments have received huge media play, and he is now being investigated by the university. We’ll find out if he ends up losing losing his job over this.
If you’d like to support Tracy, I’d suggest you write to FAU provost Dr. Brenda Claiborne and urge her to stand behind him and his right to free speech as I did last Friday. Here is a link offering contact info for Claiborne and other officials: http://www.fau.edu/provost/staff.php. Or you can email her directly at this address: provost@fau.edu Tracy’s essays have been intelligent and thoughtfu,l and he has taken heat simply because he is a professor. We should support him.
The attacks on Tracy have come notably from CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Cooper, of course, focused entirely on the most sensational claims that have been made about the shooting. He made no effort to hide his disgust in his initial report on the subject that focused on Tracy’s remarks. Usually, he explained, CNN wouldn’t dignify such “conspiracy theories” with the network’s valuable air time (I know, it’s hard not to laugh at that), but this was SO OUTRAGEOUS that they made an exception.
But the most chilling part came at the end when he pointed out that Tracy isn’t one of those regular conspiracy theorists (usually we can be found living under rocks you know), he is actually a tenured university professor whose salary is paid BY THE TAXPAYER!
Get it? Freedom of speech is one thing but not if your fellow citizens are helping you pay your rent and not if you’re teaching impressionable young people. Cooper, who is now giving Piers Morgan a run for his money as the most despicable member of the CNN disinfo team, didn’t even pay lip service to looking at the issue fairly. Not to be outdone, RT’s Abby Martin laid into conspiracy theorists for their “fear-mongering paranoia.” Jesse Ventura has also written an article opposing the idea of Sandy Hook as a false flag.
While Tracy has been taking most of the individual heat, the media and the public have been going after “conspiracy theorists” (we’re all one group, you know – unanimous about everything!) by using the more provocative statements that have been made about Sandy Hook.
In some cases they have taken statements out of context and used them to indict everyone who questions truth of what we’ve been told. Through it all they have steadfastly ignored the fact-based questions, anomalies, and contradictions that have been pointed out about the official version of the event.
Undeterred by the media onslaught, ordinary people with the willingness to ask questions are seeking out information on their own. The YouTube video “Sandy Hook Fully Exposed” has received an incredible 11 million hits in just a few days. Part 2 is now online.
While the media have been vilifying conspiracy theorists, there have been some heated debates among those who agree on false flag operations like 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. Some have chosen to stick to the hard evidence while others have focused on some of the more disturbing oddities.
Some are horrified by suggestions that parents were actually actors, that a little girl killed in the shooting wasn’t actually dead, and that a man who took surviving children into his home was “in on it.” Others are pushing ahead undeterred, relentlessly pointing out the things in this story that make no sense or that the media has ignored.
When it comes to the mainstream attention to the Sandy Hook researchers, I’m more of a “glass half full” person.
I think those who question the story do have to be responsible in who they accuse and what they suggest. On the other hand, I’m concerned about those who are claiming to “debunk” the event based on speculation and a focus on the most extreme and weak pieces of evidence. I particularly find it odd when 9/11 truth activists do this, since it is a tactic of those who would have us believe that the world is just as we are told it is by the powers that be.
I offered the opinion that father Robbie Parker was putting on an act when he spoke in front of cameras about the shooting. Given that the rest of my previous piece focused on questions about hard evidence, it could be argued (and has been) that I should not have made this statement, which was purely an opinion. This may well be the case, but my opinion about Mr. Parker’s appearance has not changed.
Having said that I do think we have to keep our focus on facts although when it comes to what the media will report, I’m not sure it matters that much. They’ll find things to ridicule if they want to, even if 99% of commentary about the shooting sticks to well-argued arguments about hard evidence. Without professors making controversial statements, would the media even bother to cover challenges to the official Sandy Hook story?
One member of the 911 Truth movement has been trying to make the case that all the anomalies of Sandy Hook can be explained and that there is zero evidence of any conspiracy. Jeff Prager, who is also on record as believing 9/11 to be a nuclear event, offered explanations for a number of contentious points on the Kevin Barrett radio show recently.
But while Prager says he examined vast amounts of media coverage for several days following the shooting to determine what was reported when, his explanations leave something to be desired. For example, his explanation for why Sandy Hook school nurse Sally Cox claimed to have known Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, stating that she was an experienced kindergarten teacher (early reports that she was a teacher at Sandy Hook proved to be false): “She’s a flippin’ loon.”
The fact that Cox apparently claimed to have known Nancy Lanza deserves more examination than just calling her a name. Prager also suggested that unidentified individuals who were taken into custody could just have been innocently walking around.
If Prager’s intent is to caution us against jumping to conclusions and not doing our homework, then I applaud it. But from what I heard, he is just coming up with possible explanations for the anomalies and catching some false statements and claims. But just because some claims are sloppy and false does not mean that there aren’t many other points that merit suspicion.
Police video shows two guns in trunk
It seems that every day a new piece of evidence comes to light that can’t be explained by the official story. Because of the proliferation of questions about the firearms found at the scene that day by police, a decision was made last week to clarify which weapons were found. But instead of clearing up the confusion, they’ve added to the mystery.
According to a press release from the Connecticut State Police from last Friday:
“Seized inside the school were the following: a Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips; a Glock 10 mm handgun; and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. Seized from the suspect’s car in parking lot was a Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun.”
The problem is that this appears to be contradicted by the police’s own video, shot the night of the shooting. The video (an extended version of what a lot of people have already seen) clearly shows two crime scene investigators in white suits walking away from the car alleged to have been driven by shooting suspect Adam Lanza, each carrying long guns. Unless one of these guns was the same one allegedly found inside the school, which has been taken from inside the school to the parking lot, then we have a problem.
Unless the Bushmaster was moved from where it was found inside the school and taken to where the trunk of the car was being searched (I’m not sure why they would do that), then how can police account for the second gun found being carried away from the car on the night of Dec. 14? Could it be that earlier reports that only handguns were found inside the school were correct? And could one of the two guns being carried from the car have been the Bushmaster?
If the latter is true, then how can we account for the claim of chief medical examiner H. Wayne Carver that all those killed were shot with the rifle? And then there is the claim that the school was littered with spent .223 shells.
It’s interesting that shortly after the shooting, Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance threatened to arrest and prosecut people who distribute false information on the Internet about the Sandy Hook event.
If that’s not the definition of irony, I don’t know what is.
It’s ironic because the false information associated with Sandy Hook has come primarily from the mainstream media along with federal and state officials and unnamed “law enforcement” sources. I wonder if any of those will be prosecuted by Lt. Vance and his crack team.
The sheer number of false reports we’ve seen in this case is cause enough for suspicion. Most chalk it up to confusion, but those who are content with this explanation have likely never worked as reporters. Yes, a journalist at the scene of a disaster might be interviewing regular citizens who say conflicting things, but it’s simply not normal that media would publish dozens of false reports from unnamed law enforcement sources.
Just on the subject of guns we heard reports that the rifle was found in the trunk of the car and two handguns were found with the alleged gunman. Later, NBC told us that this was wrong and that there were FOUR handguns found inside the school and ONLY handguns. But that didn’t quite fit with the claim that the victims were killed with a rifle or that spent .223 shells were found all over the school, so it changed again.
Then, of course, we have the growing number of Sandy Hook fundraising web pages, Facebook pages, blogs, and even obituaries that are dated BEFORE the shooting. That subject deserves a lot more attention. Yes, some have come up with possible explanations for some one of these – but all six? The odds that they are all computer glitches are astronomical.
So we have a shooting with facts that don’t add up. We have conspiracy researchers telling us there is no conspiracy. And we have more and more questions being asked and more and more anomalies being uncovered every day.
We largely missed the boat on the utterly bogus “lone gunman” Aurora shooting; let’s not let that happen this time.
Those who are serious about looking into Sandy Hook really need to
listen to the interview of Mike Powers by Joyce Riley found at you
want to listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK8tLX6VQp4
I have several articles about Sandy Hook at “Veterans Today, Jim
Fetzer”. Here is a recent statement about it published by the Duluth
News-Tribune, which was published on 13 January 2013.
Why Sandy Hook Matters
By Jim Fetzer
When asked whether he believed in conspiracy theories, Michael Moore
replied, “Only those that are true.” The problem is telling the
difference.
Having spent much of the past 20 years in collaborative research on
dark events (JFK, 9/11, Wellstone), Sandy Hook looks like part of an
escalating series of covert operations designed to promote public
hysteria, to incite gun control and subvert the 2nd amendment. Here
are some reasons why.
A theory is simply an interpretation of the facts in a given case.
When the police investigate a crime, they form a theory of the case.
In courts of law, prosecutors and defense attorneys usually offer
alternative interpretations. With Sandy Hook, figuring out what
happened poses special challenges.
The facts are not obvious. There were inconsistencies from scratch.
The suspect, Adam Lanza was a student there; then he was not. His
mother was a teacher there; then she was not. The principal had
called the local paper to report about the shooting; then she was
among the first to die.
The coroner reported all the dead had been shot with a Bushmaster;
then NBC News reported that four handguns had been found with the body
and that the AR-15 had been left in the car. Check out YouTube, “Sandy
Hook shooting – AR-15 rifle was left in the car!”
Even if Adam, 20, had done some shooting, the ratio of kills to
targets was remarkable. As a Marine Corps officer, I qualified with a
.45 four years in a row and also supervised recruits of his age in
their marksmanship training. I can’t see how he could have done it.
Police radio in real-time reported two suspects headed toward the
officer calling in, one of whom was apprehended. The other was tracked
into the woods, as police helicopter footage shows. We have no idea
what became of them. So what happened?
* The most likely scenario is that Adam Lanza and his mother were
killed the day before. Adam Lanza ’s body picked up by police. He was
attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the
school.
* A three-man team entered the school, one was arrested in the
school–cuffed and put on the lawn–two went out the back door, one was
arrested, the third appears to have escaped.
* Those arrested are currently not in police custody; their names were
never released. That is a telling sign that we are being sold a story
that is based on fiction rather than fact.
Does anything else matter? Most Americans are unaware the Department
of Homeland Security has acquired 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber,
hollow-point ammunition, which is not even permissible during combat
under the Geneva Conventions.
A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security has issued
a study of 680 reports from “fusion centers”, which integrate federal,
state and local anti-terrorism efforts. It found no evidence of any
domestic terrorist activity.
The absence of any terrorist threat–and the existence of more than 300
FEMA camps and special boxcars to carry dissidents to them–has been
deliberately withheld from the public.
Since Homeland Security has no foreign commitments, those camps and
ammunition have to be for domestic consumption. DHS appears to be
gearing up to conduct a civil war with the American people but
80,000,000 armed families stand in its way.
What better excuse could there be for banning assault weapons than the
slaughter of 20 innocent children? Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has a
gun control proposal that would lead to the confiscation of virtually
every semi-automatic weapon in the nation. That’s my interpretation of
Sandy Hook.
Jim Fetzer, a journalist for Veterans Today, is McKnight Professor
Emeritus at UMD.
Recommended resources:
On background issues:
“From America to Amerika: The End Game” by Jim Fetzer with Dennis
Cimino (Veterans Today, 12 November 2011)
“Fusion and Fear in America: The non-existent ‘terrorist threat'” by
John W. Whitehead (Veterans Today, 4 October 2012)
“Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War” by Paul Joseph
Watson and Alexander Higgins (Veterans Today, 6 October 2012)
On Sandy Hook specifically:
“The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing
Information” by James Tracy (Global Research, 25 December 2012)
“Sandy Hook: Huge Hoax and Anti-Gun ‘Psy Op'” by Jim Fetzer (Veterans
Today, 27 December 2012)
“Sandy Hook: Analogies with the London 7/7 bombings” by Nicholas
Kollerstrom (Veterans Today, 6 January 2013)
Nice analysis Dr. Fetzer. Do you believe any children were actually killed or were they abducted? Given AnderCIA Cooper’s display of the owl painting on TV and his statement that Obama will frame it and hang it in his office (the painting supposedly done by deceased child Grace McDonnell) I wonder if kids got shipped off to Bohemian Grove, to meet a fate far worse than a madman’s bullet.
However some of the kids are definitely still alive and most likely belong to other families, such as “Jessica Rekos” who appears in the Sexton family Picasa photo album along with “Nick and Laura Phelps.”
The question is not as unwarranted as most of the public may believe. If this had been a real shooting of children, there would have been a sense of panic and of hysteria. EMTs would have rushed into the building. The children would have been rushed out on stretchers and into ambulances and other vehicles and rushed to a hospital for doctors to treat them and formally pronounce the death of those who had been killed. Nothing remotely like this happened. The police cordoned off everyone from the school. No one was allowed to see the bodies. They were transported in the dead of night. These considerations alone suggest that this was a fabricated or staged event. I wish it were otherwise, but you have raised an excellent question, which is reinforced by multiple peculiarities about photographs and others. Sandy Hook is a MUCH BIGGER EVENT than it would have been had it been authentic.
Well put, Dr. Fetzer.
Good stuff Jim. I have had some success with presenting folks with the following scenario: “If you were reading a novel about the CIA and how they had been given the task of creating a false flag event which involved a shooting, where the main goal was to sway the minds of the entire country in the least amount of time and in the most effective way causing the least amount of controversy so that there could be a swift and dramatic change in gun laws, What kind of an event do you think that novelist would come up? And what would need to be the details of that event in order to achieve the perfect desired goals? Remember, you want people to believe it, never question it, those who do will be ridiculed, and you want an intense dramatic response.” Hmmmm,…. let me think……
On background issues:
“From America to Amerika: The End Game” by Jim Fetzer with Dennis Cimino
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/11/from-america-to-amerika-the-end-game/
“Fusion and Fear in America: The non-existent ‘terrorist threat'” by John W. Whitehead
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/04/fusion-and-fear-in-america-the-non-existent-terrorist-threat/
“Homeland Security: Preparing for Massive Civil War” by Paul Joseph Watson and Alexander Higgins
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/
On Sandy Hook specifically:
“The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information” by James Tracy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sandy-hook-school-massacre-unanswered-questions-and-missing-information/5316776
“Sandy Hook: Huge Hoax and Anti-Gun ‘Psy Op'” by Jim Fetzer
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/
“Sandy Hook: Analogies with the London 7/7 bombings” by Nicholas Kollerstrom
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/06/sandy-hook-analogies-with-the-london-77-bombings/
i think too many questions were raised too fast. i think this is a trap to go after anyone who raises questions and portray them as preying upon the dead children to push their paranoid conspiracy theories.
Craig: Here’s a fact. During the 20th Century, at least 200 million people died by the hands of despots and tyrants either through the casualties of war or by the gulag. The internationalist know the only way to implement the global police state is to disarm all those living or citizens living in the U.S. Then the “New World Order” can go into full implementation mode.
Here’s the rub: There are people horrified that others would suggest that perhaps parents performed the role of actor in this event but because they are not current victims of the gulag, stare blankly at the history of the 20th Century. Truly stunning.
Further, to act with moral disgust that any self-respecting truther would even imply that something is just plain wrong with the official story of Sandy Hook is the tactic of smearing the innocent through guilty by association. I’ve shredded ops who attempted this lame tactic years prior when truther Col. DePre was accused of anti-semetic thought and how could anyone tie their anchor to his views about 9/11.
I think that all those individuals (Painter, etc.) who are lamenting this “sandy hook trutherism” phenomenon should take a step back. WHETHER OR NOT this conspiracy has legs (and I remain a skeptic about Sandy Hook), people should be celebrating the fact that since 9/11, people are now starting to get skeptical about major media events from the get go. People waited years to question 9/11, same with JFK. The “Sandy Hook conspiracy” has gone more viral, more rapidly, and so soon after the actual event, than any other “theory” I’ve ever known. If people start off with the “conspiracy high” by watching some youtube videos, and then come to question 9/11 and 7/7 and JFK and OKC and other events, then this phenomenon will have been a good thing.
People are beginning to question “official stories” right from the get-go. They aren’t waiting 5 or 20 years to do so. I regard this as a success of the 9/11 truth movement.
I’m with Adam here. I think that any and EVERY new shock event warrants being looked at as a likely or potential snow-job. And, I, too, am profoundly glad the public is beginning to see it that way — and perhaps become more open to disclosures that they’re been not only lied to, but the public welfare and safety actually trashed by some crazy Rambos unfortunately in authority. But, I’m also with Adam in another way. I also have not followed all of the reports of Sandy Hook day and night since as some who shout that the reported evidence is contradictory and likely cooked have. Having to do with 9/11, I have. I have made is my responsibility to do so and to speak out and urge others to do so as well. But, the dilemma is that hardly anyone has the drive or stamina to become totally expert on all of these events. And I know or strongly suspect that at least some of the very suspicious evidence that was purveyed about, for instance, both the reported Sandy Hook shooter and the Aurora shooter having fathers scheduled to testify in the Libor case in London the day after the respective event, was not founded in fact. So, what of the other reported evidence? How am I to know? How is the public, most of which has probably paid less attention to developments than I, to know? So, how are we ever going to win out by insisting on what we are insisting on, be it on 9/11, Sandy Hook, or whatever? An overall strategy is in order!
I think there is a possibility that the Libor connection still has legs. It is an ongoing, international investigation, and I think the US is trying to dodge the bullet. Holmes’ father was scheduled to testify but has been excused because of the Aurora shooting. Lanza’s father was/is VP for GE Financial, an entity that profited greatly from Libor and 3 people under him have been sentenced to prison for their part in Libor. By removing these two men/making them unavailable to testify, it will limit the international banking investigation much harder to prove against american institutions
Extremely germane point, Adam. Maintaining historical time frames as ONE of our perspectives is important, IMO. One of the reasons it’s important is that it can cool our jets when we’re anxious for quick results. The emergence of truth, let alone justice, reconciliation and peace, regrettably tends to be a long drawn-out process. I am not happy about that observation. In fact I find it very troubling. Nevertheless we should keep it in mind. So Adam’s point that the “lead time” between an historical event and the time it begins to be seriously — and widely — questioned is significant in itself and also, it just so happens, is a legitimate cause for celebration.
It’s a positive development, certainly, that people always question everything put out and raise objecton to reports that are contradictory or dubious, but to reflexively insist there was a conspiracy because they can conjure up what seems to them a possible motive for one and then insist there WAS one without being able to point to evidence, and accuse doubters of atrocious loyalties and motives (in evidence here) only gives truth-seekers a bad rep.
I had written out a long post when my computer crashed and poof it was gone. Oh well.
Great article once again Craig I have to admit that I see the situation in much the same way you do. For me the most telling factor in the SH story is that the evidence is suppressed and the story is being tightly controlled by professional liars. In point of fact we KNOW virtually nothing about what happened or didn’t happen. All we really have is a bunch of conflicting reports from the corporate whore media who we all know (or should know by now) are professional pathological liars.
That reminds me a lot of 9/11 which as we all know was indeed an inside job. Also SH fits neatly within the sick and twisted modus operandi of this regime. When I say regime I do not mean Obama who in my view is just a front man spokes model for the real controllers of our country. They have done so many of these false flag attacks in fact that if SH turns out to not be one it will be a break from the usual pattern and quite unique.
No I have to tell you my nose smells a big stinking false flag attack here. I hope I am wrong but I hoped the same thing for a while about 9/11. Who were the two guys captured right after the event? Where is the surveillance video from the school or any video for that matter from the people who were there.
Getting information from the corporate whore media is like getting your food from the trash in back of a fast food dump with an F rating from the health department.
Adam, this reminds me of the occupy movement. I don’t think things get this big this fast without something going on behind the scenes. I hope you’re right but I don’t have a good feeling about this.
i have been wondering…has anyone (outside of the coroner) said that they actually saw the bodies of the victims who have been reportedly murdered? if so, who? i seem to remember an early report that the parents were not allowed to view their own kids’ bodies in person, but had to i.d. the bodies thru some sort of video (or other) feed.
also, with all these alleged murders in the same town, wouldn’t the local funeral parlors have become overwhelmed with work? did that happen? does anyone know? has this been looked into?
also huge to me is as ruffadam expressed it: “Where is the surveillance video from the school or any video for that matter from the people who were there?” also related, what about news reports/videos of the funerals? this is something the mainstream media usually milks for all its worth. has there been any reporting/video recording of the funerals?
Dennis, there is this via, Señor El Once:
“The details that stuck with me the most — and the details which I felt most conflicted about putting in print — were Veronique Pozner’s descriptions of the damage to her son’s body [Noah Pozner]. He was shot 11 times; she told me that his jaw and his left hand were mostly gone. … “We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away.”
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/168707/wrestling-with-details-of-noah-pozners-killing/
\\][//
WW,
Wow! So sorry to hear. Thanks. I was kinda hoping it would turn out to be a “Wag the Dog” trip, so that no kids had died. But they’ve killed kids before (e.g., OKC) , so this is not a surprise.
–D
As far as I know, there are reports of some open caskets; presumably those families saw their kid; I know of no photos (not that there would be) of any such children. The lack of evidence either way is troubling. Let’s see the DEATH CERTS, which it’s illegal to fake.
Note: an Adam P Lanza is reported dead on the 13th, the day before the shooting, in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) and on Genealogy.com — and it’s now been proven that the birthdate matches the (hitherto unknown) birthdate of our accused lone gunman, and the state (New Hampshire) for his original home matches the state of his death. As to how he died on the 13th, or if it is a clerical error … we don’t know. For information on the link between AP Lanza of SSDI with AP Lanza of Sandy Hook, see http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/01/adam-lanza-is-dead-dec-13-same-adam.html
Mr. Syed wrote:
Indeed.
I am a little bit fascinated by the purposeful disinformation and the “conspiracies-designed-to-be-debunked” that came out so soon. A great example of this is the hand-me-down dress that supposedly indicated Emily Parker was not a victim. The video went viral, and pointing out its weak arguments became a cornerstone of the effort to debunk any thought about the event that was conspiratorial in nature, thus remove the need to debunk larger issues.
For instance, the “truthers” have drudged up at least 6 cases where online memorials or funds etc. were created BEFORE the date of the event. The smoking gun becomes the coincidence in the number of official venues that had seeming foreknowledge or klutzy screw-ups with regards to tweaking creation/publication dates. Why were the dates changed?
What is interesting to me is when Google (corporation) search results are tampered with and when Facebook corporation calls into actions its system administrators to jack with users accounts that had postings expressing “conspiratorial” views, and that these mirror the statements of Lt. Vance of the CT State Patrol who said they’d go after those posting such views… which ignored the fact that information went through official channels to the media and that the internet merely poked holes into their message spin.
A rant in someone’s video put a nice frame around the situation. With all of the new security and surveillance cameras at SH, where is the video of the “culprit” breaking into the school? Police have admitted that their operations necessitated them breaking into the school, too. I’d like to see those videos as well.
But like the video footage of security cameras around the Pentagon and neighboring businesses from 9/11, they aren’t released.
Quick review: Hegelian Dialectic says thesis, antithesis, synthesis. In other words, a problem is manufactured usually with a ready-in-the-wings antithesis at an extreme so that the resulting synthesis can take society further a knee-jerk direction that it doesn’t really want to go in. And the way geo-politics are played, the Hegelian Dialectic has plural forms and goals.
Although gun control is the big trend line, another one is mental health. And the unspoken trend line is: how many of the recent shootings involved those already taking mental health medicines?
I regret that I cannot find the link to a relatively recent (last 2 months) article by someone now deceased that lists and lists and lists deceased youth who were taking such medications when they committed suicide or the massacre of others (followed by cop-assisted-suicide in cases).
After watching Darren Brown’s many YouTube offerings, I am now convinced that MK Ultra style mind-control isn’t so far fetched, whether or not mental health medicines (and violent movies & video games) aided in the process.
//
Great article Mr McKee,
It covers many of the troubling aspects of the case as well as the troubling aspects of the divided camps in response to the case.
As usual {grin} I have had a lot to say on the previous thread about this. I was willing to consider a totally staged event for some time, but I was always dubious. But this rests on the meaning of “staged”. And that word can be qualified in many ways. So I will try to articulate what I would mean using the ‘generalization’ of the word. In this way I would say that there are certainly aspects of ‘staging’ – and the first aspect of this is the stage as ‘set’ by the MSM that sets the “official narrative”, which as we know is in fact a kaleidoscope of ever changing lights and shadows. As such I see this as ‘intent’, a stirring of cognizance and emotions, a spinning strategy of tension. Yes, as Senor pointed out, as aspect of the Hegelian Dialectical process. So again I would mention the process as Design masquerading as Diagnosis. The presentation is portrayed by the Public Relations Regime as “investigative reporting” – but is in fact a working script pre-established. Those behind the PR regime already know what actually happened – they planned and executed the ‘event’.
This was designed to go viral, counting on the MO of “conspiracy theorists” it has been a trap set and prodded by counter intel which promotes the weaker, ‘far out’ aspects, such as the Crisis Actors scenario, the Parker family anomalies, etc. Bring on the clowns; Gene Rosen, with his ever changing story. Is he some neurotic seeking public fame? Is he a plant of the designers. All of this falls into Wonderland at some point.
I still think the bottom line is the agenda to attack the 2nd Amendment. Not only to push ‘gun Control’ but to push the buttons of the gun owners, and in dialectics to push the buttons of those who are totally against guns. The synthesis I see developing from this is a ‘civil war’, now rhetorical – but a situation that could turn Hot__Go Live.
As usual the agenda target is FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. This target will not be possible without first disarming Amerika.
As to the event itself, my central hypothesis is that there were indeed these killings, but that it was a hit by black-op pro’s and that Adam Lanza is a patsy.
Until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that Lanza was the killer, I am sticking to this hypothesis. My back up would be Lanza as MK Monarch shooter…because the killings were too efficient for some autistic kid acting alone, and the forensic report of him found dead with only two handguns really spoils the official story – and would need a very convincing explanation as to why something as obvious as the Bushmaster wasn’t seen right away with the dead Lanza.
\\][//
It doesn’t bother me that the Bushmaster wasn’t found with the dead Lanza. But one would have expected it along some path from his last victim to his suicided body. In the truck of a car? No way. And this is assuming they prove that the Bushmaster from the car’s trunk was “the” weapon.
I am curious as to the limitations in the helicopter footage. One would think that if they managed to catch the chase of a suspicious subject in the woods, they also would have caught the exodus of the school’s population to the firehouse. The helicopter was there for awhile; Lt. Vance said it was used to chase away media helicopters. Just like in the Aurora shootings, one helicopter provided all images to all networks. And the digital manipulation — fuzzy trees, green grass — is also rather curious.
This whole story is so neatly wrapped up into a bow. Most reporting now considers it a foregone conclusion that Lanza did it.
“Killings too efficient for some autistic kid acting alone?” For an MK Ultra’ed austic kid, I disagree and don’t rule it out. If we can believe the bullet count in some of the bodies, then it’s as if the Bushmaster were in full automatic mode and the patsy was just spraying the room(s) back and forth (like a video game). I can’t imagine him pulling the trigger individually for each bullet.
//
“For an MK Ultra’ed austic [sic] kid”~Señor
As if I didn’t address that Señor…keep in mind if a shooter is MK they have handlers, they are not in fact lone gunmen in that case, they need their cues triggered. But this also discounts the other evidence of the other ‘suspects’ that dropped off the merry-go-round of the news cycle, two long guns in the trunk, the ever expanding gun list…
On full auto, it is almost essential to use drum magazines, just a few seconds would exhaust a banana clip. I posit other shooters with just such weapons, who were spirited away by inside law enforcement.
But frankly I am less concerned with the event than the agenda it is meant to serve, and that agenda is glaringly obvious. Not only obvious but coming at us like a freight train.
\\][//
I think there are many good reasons to see it this way. I am still troubled by some elements of the story that seem not to fit the a real shooting scenario But despite my comment about Parker, I’m keeping an open mind. We have a lot more to learn about this.
The study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.”~Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
This ‘framing click’ of perspective is already playing out in the gatekeeper ‘blogs’ – the cointelpro counter agents posing as “Truthers”.
I didn’t get this with a URL, but searching the title and author and title;’ West Point Defines “Domestic Enemies” to Prepare Troops to Take On Americans’, will take you to this critical article.
\\][//
BTW, it is in the interest of all involved here to understand this West Point paper, as YOU are among the “Domestic Enemy” as defined it the paper.
\\][//
Excellent article, Craig. I see the Sandy Hook Commission met for the first time today. What was emphasized was the need for recommendations on how to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Sounds oh so familiar to the challenge to the 9/11 Commission — how to prevent it from happening again. And from that flowed the justification for the Department of Homeland Security.
Thanks, Dwain. Yes, the focus is never on establishing who was involved or how many. The “guilty” party is always known pretty much from the outset.
I’ve lurked here for a while, so I’m giving this first post a go. Like everyone I was saddened when I heard the breaking news while at work. But then a slight quiver came when I thought of the dubiousness of the story of the Aurora, CO incident (I watched a YouTube convincing to that effect) along with the notion of MK Ultra-type activity. I’ve been a proponent of 9/11 Truth for many years.
I haven’t delved too much in to the facts of the SH case, or the what evidence has been, but Craig you bring up some questionable anomalies and inconsistencies here and in your previous posting.
I’ve taken an interest in the ‘Sandy Hook Actors’ meme; and have found the blog postings on these links helpful in this regard.
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/remarkable-resemblance-of-sandy-hook-victims-and-professional-crisis-actors/
http://nodisinfo.com/Home/2013/01/24/what-does-michael-greenberg-aka-sandy-hook-operative-have-to-hide/
(For the record, I wholly disagree that the defense attorney representing James Holmes bears a resemblance to Jennifer Greenberg-Sexton, a.k.a. Laura Phelps.)
I also find questionable the behavior of the state of Conn. chief medical examiner, Wayne Carver. This is supposed to be a professional, and one would expect that someone in that position–which in essence is a public official–would give us the straight facts that dovetail with the ongoing developments of what happened in the tragedy. I don’t buy the idea that someone in his position would display aberrant behavior and jumble the facts, even in those trying circumstances.
In sum, on the scale that runs from skepticism to extreme conspiracy theorizing, I’d say with without any conclusive bits of contradictory evidence that somehow tie in, that something just isn’t ‘right’ about this whole incident. I’ll certainly stay tuned.
Eric Davis,
I am disappointed that no one as of yet has realized that State Trooper Vance is actually Kevin Costner, doing a Marlon Brando impersonation. And that Brodrick Crawford is playing the part of Coroner Carver….{grin}
I am in total agreement with you that the defense attorney representing James Holmes bears absolutely no resemblance to Jennifer Greenberg-Sexton, a.k.a. Laura Phelps.
And I have to look really close at the “Greenberg-Sexton-Phelps” and say it is just a toss-up as to whether these are the same people…in some photo’s it is really close, others not so much to not at all.
This is an area of the research that seems to be tainted with a lot of spinning jive, but may have a couple hits on the money.
As far as facial recognition – it is not something that all are equal in, and this may be one of the reasons that the “Greenberg acting troupe” scam…which it is as an overall production, ala Dallas Goldbug, etal…This could be a subtle psyop to dismiss the whole idea, where as in certain spot cases it is actually in fact used at times.
This is why I see this mainly as a red herring ploy..a walk in the weeds, like the Simon Shack circus tent on 9/11.
Hope we see more of your thoughts here on this case.
\\][//
Thanks for keeping me honest!
Dallas Goldbug/Ed Chiarini has to be an operative, and I now believe he was put there to intentionally muddy the waters in events like these which instantly turns people away when they google “_______ hoax” and his site or videos are the 1st ones to come up leaving the person to believe we are all crackpots.
I do believe this event was a hoax, but based on the other anomalies, like the lack of video footage, no broken glass, no broken door, the confusion about the guns used and found or planted, as well as the obvious fake acting of every non crying “parent”, Gene Rosen’s whole story, Nurse Cox’s changing/ conflicting stories, the early google/facebook entries, Lanza’s early SSDI entry, etc., etc.
In my opinion, they did use actors, but they are not well known like DGB contends, and will probably be relocated and like mob snitches, and given a hefty sum of money for their acting. I don’t buy the Sexton/Phelps or Greenberg comparison or that Parker is really Tony Hawk, or that Vance is John Goodman or that Carver is King Kong Bundy/”Ice Man” Richard Kukilinski or any of his other nonsense since coming on the scene after the Giffords “shooting”. Carver is a legitimate medical examiner, but probably didn’t know which lies he was suppose to tell, and was obviously nervous that the whole event would come back to haunt him hence his comments about “holding up in court”, etc. Vance is also a real state cop, but is obviously “in on it”. As for Gene Rosen, I think it’s obvious that he is completely full of shit, and it makes me wonder how his “audition tape” made it on youtube. Another piece of cointelpro based theories making the rounds is the Sorcha Faal “LIBOR” scandal ties. I also believe the “crisis actors” site to be a honeypot.
It really makes me wonder besides the obvious gun control and fear agendas why else were they so careless. Are they looking to villify anyone who questions “official stories” of obvious false flags? It’s obvious that Alex Jones little rant on Piers Morgan’s show was done to make us look nutty too. It’s important that we “police” ourselves from passing on disinformation, but still question EVERYONE’S motives.
They want a Civil War, and I think the main thing here besides fear and ritual was causing division which will help in the case of a “cold” Civil War. Class, religion, race, politics, opinions, etc. will all come in to play when the shit does hit the fan. There will be no “right” or “wrong” just chaos which will benefit the elite in their goal for 1 World Government to be officially announced.
Dear Mr. Cooke,
Nice analysis. Indeed, it is the purposeful disinformation that pricks my truther balloon to deflate me in these discussions.
Mr. Rogue has a nice set of 30 questions below that drives the point home about how they are so concerned about keeping “the official story” straight that they can’t be bothered with telling a straight, truthful story that answers the questions.
And Dr. Fetzer’s remark bares repeating:
Indeed.
Emergency vehicles were blocked in at the firehouse. Supposedly, because they didn’t know who all was involved as “culprits” and they were still hunting those who might be lurking. After three hours, one of the adults in the building said that police teams got them out. Plenty of time for helicopters to swarm like bees, but they didn’t, because the police helicopter chased them off and was making money on its single-source footage — very much sanitized, edited, and limited to nothing of consequence.
For the amount of time that elapsed between when the event kicked off and when the all clear sign was given, the clue to the couch-potatoe public is how the published footage in this made-for-television event does not jive. I would have expected hours of aerial footage. By now, I would have expected release of the security tapes that documents important elements of the story, like how the “cuprit” broke in, how the students filed out, etc. I’m still in awe that the Newport Bee’s photograph of a drill at the school is still being propped up as live and actual.
‘Prosopagnosia’, also known as ‘Visual Agnosia’, is the Inability To Recognize/Recall Faces.
There are some 2 to 4 percent of any human population that is born with this inability. It can also result from head and brain injuries – and is also common to stroke victims.
\\][//
I’ve been nearly obsessed with investigating Sandy Hook and am pretty sure it’s a full-scale drill after recently listening to the scanners .
Craig,
I find it interesting that those who were so incensed at your first article on this issue, and felt it to be such a blunder, have nothing more to say on this. Especially as with this article you are focusing on that very aspect in this present piece.
We have spoken to the First and Second Amendments in the last thread…I wonder if now these detractors are seeing to the Fifth?
\\][//
What is the core source of the brouhaha and conflict that has arisen on this topic?
I would argue that it sits in the general and widespread ignorance of the Constitution, and the nature of our personal rights as existent regardless of any guarantee by a government, leading to the false assumption that government actually has the power to grant these rights – and the dialectic that the granting power has the authority to remove such rights.
Those so alarmed with the idea that “Truthers” are spoiling their “reputations” by this investigation into the Sandy Hook event, seem inevitably to also be the ones who are so grossly misinformed as to the history of the nation and the meaning of a Constitutional Republic.
Their notions are clearly based on socialist ideology, that of the State as nanny and caretaker.
I just came upon a relevant article speaking to these issues that would profit all here to read and understand:
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-club-of-liberals-transhumanism-depopulation/
“By liberals, I simply mean those people who accept big government as a given, regardless of their political affiliation.
For them, big, bigger, and biggest government is a rock-bottom assumption that requires no thought. The sun comes up every morning, and there is big government.
This assumption supersedes anything written in the US Constitution explicitly limiting the power of central authority.
Where there is conflict between that document and the actions of government, the Constitution automatically takes a back seat. It is looked upon as a primitive, ancient, and worn-out set of ideas”–Jon Rappoport
\\][//
According to Jefferson, “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” Which means that the government is and does whatever the bulk of the people at the time want it to, whether disgruntled others like it or not. That’s precisely why revolution is always in vogue.
“Which means that the government is and does whatever the bulk of the people at the time want it to, whether disgruntled others like it or not.”~James Hufferd
Is that what that means Hufferd? Really? And you just channeled Jefferson and asked him what that meant and that was his answer?
You describe pure democracy there. The rule of the mob. Jefferson was much to wise to fall for that line of bullshit.
I would posit here James, that you have pulled that out of your own hat, because Jefferson was opposed to tyranny of any kind, and loved liberty. You might recall that the Majority of the people in the colonies were NOT sons of Liberty, and that it was only about twenty percent who favored separation from ‘Mother England’.
A tyranny of the majority is what you propose here, a tyranny molded and refined by perception manipulation by a tiny minority. We have spoken to public relations here many times – do you seriously believe that the majority here have their own thoughts that have not been manipulated by scientific processing and propaganda?
As one of “the disgruntled others” Hufferd, be on notice that there are those of us who prefer to die on our feet rather than live on our knees. You and your “majority” of tethered sheep had better understand that if you push us, there will be blood.
Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?
If so from where does this authority derive?
\\][//
And let me make this perfectly clear Hufferd, we do not want this fight. This is all a provocation from the despotic “government” – left alone there would be no fight.
Now if you haven’t read the West Point paper defining who the “Domestic Enemy” is, you had better get to it and understand that YOU are the domestic enemy the paper refers to, the whole of the people are targeted as the enemy here.
If, “First they came for the gun owners, and I did not speak up…” doesn’t ring any bells for you, you are unteachable.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
January 25, 2013 – 1:35 pm
Socrates,
I’m afraid that you did not provide a single snippet of substance to your reply of, JANUARY 25, 2013 – 9:33 AM, to explain away all of the visual evidence of the plane crashing into the second tower.
In fact your quoting of my commentary on television was totally nonsensical.
Then your construction of the Arab Hijackers gambit only to destruct it in the same motion was….’curious’..then you finish that train of thought with this statement:
>”Wow: remote controlled aircraft that look like commercial Boeings, now that’s complicated.”
It is not at all complicated and only relies on slight software updates to an autopilot system already used by these aircraft. This technology was clearly available prior to 2001.~ HR1
When I said “complicated” I was not only talking about only “updating software” as you put it but where did they depart from? Where they disguised to look like regular domestic flights with regular passengers and crew? That’s what I mean by “complicated”
Let me say Socrates, I do not ask you for a rhetorical circus, I ask you to explain the visual evidence of air crashes at WTC. This is a technical question on how such evidence is in such vast abundance, not merely from television, but thousands of sources; could possibly be denied.
If you cannot explain this in a concise to the point manner, don’t try a bullshit gumbo on me.
I will be checking in at the next thread over today –>>
If you want to introduce “BULLSHIT” into the conversation it is only you that is peddling it.
HR1
I’m afraid that you did not provide a single snippet of substance to your reply of, JANUARY 25, 2013 – 9:33 AM, to explain away all of the visual evidence of the plane crashing into the second tower.~HR1
What is your visual evidence? Do you mean Television evidence?
Let me say Socrates, I do not ask you for a rhetorical circus, I ask you to explain the visual evidence of air crashes at WTC.~HR1
There is no visual evidence only hearsay from dubious witnesses and fake television footage and I might add no plane wreckage of any sort.
“An excellent, and a essential perspective on the most dangerous weapon in the hands of the system; TELEVISION”.
“Programmed to do what?
To respond not as an individual, but as a “type of person.”~Hybridrogue1.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE. You seem to be confirming my position?
You believe two remote controlled Boeing 757s hit WTC1 and WTC2 and although no plane debris was ever found this is what you want to believe.
Do you also believe that the planes were not necessary to effect the destruction of both towers?
And just because I quite like what I wrote yesterday which serves to demolish any motive that suicidal Arab Muslim terrorists are responsible which you appear to accept; I’m posting it again.
You don’t believe, do you that the “Perps” after filling the twin towers with whatever it was that demolished them were going to rely on co-opted suicidal Arab Islamic terrorists to fly commercial jets into them?
Arab Islamic terrorists independent and freely committed to killing themselves for their religious beliefs don’t work for the West or for any Western alphabet soup organization.
Corresponding with you and anybody else who wishes to take me on over this matter serves to encourage and strengthen my understanding of what really happened and relegates my protagonists to an elementary understanding of what they think happened on 9/11.
HR1: You should explain why you believe planes crashed into WTC1 and WTC2.
Is it because you watched it on television and you want to believe something of the official version?
One last thing: It is preposterous to believe that two planes crashed into the towers and not one piece of aircraft debris was ever retrieved not before the towers were felled or after.
I want to offer a thought that I could have left in the previous thread. It concerns Painter’s concern about wanting to feel “safe” from gun violence in the USA. I do sympathize with the gun violence he’s personally witnessed in the flesh. I was also inspired to compose this comment after seeing a poll on facebook where the question was asked: “What would you rather have: freedom, or security?”
I have a good friend, American, who lives in China and teaches music at a school there. China is an incredibly safe place from street criminals. This woman is very beautiful and very petite, exactly the kind of woman who would not want to risk walking down a dark alley at 3 a.m. in an American city. However, in China, she can do just that. She loves that aspect of China, and she feels very safe there.
However, as we all know, China is a crushing police state when it comes to political freedom. Personally, I would rather live in a country where there is a risk of getting shot at the mall, than in a country where a person can go to jail for dissenting against government policy.
Good points Adam,
Any who have studied the Rockefeller NWO agenda understand that is is exactly “The China Model” of corporate feudalism that they have planned for their global gulag.
Any who fail to notice that the US is steady on that arc towards totalitarian control is walking through life in their sleep. It is astonishing, the depth of their enchantment. It is amazing that their thinking has been so compartmentalized that they can make an argument to one principle on a certain subject and then turn around and make another argument crushing that principle on another subject. This compartmentalization/fragmentation of logic and proportion is the result of generations of brainwashing.
We face such an OBVIOUSLY totalitarian system here, I cannot get my head around the idea that anyone with a lick of sense cannot see this. Aghast, I am simply aghast. It is like living in a science fiction story…the ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ or something.
So I ask you Adam;
Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?
If so from where does this authority derive?
\\][//
Ideally, security is a requisite for enjoying freedom. However, something is badly out of balance when you’re forced to choose between reasonable security and reasonable freedom.
Hufferd,
I am reading you, but I don’t get it. How can you reasonably expect either freedom or security from what is demonstrably a Tyrannical “government”?
Are you so totally unaware of what is happening today? Do you seriously contend that this is a constitutional republic? Have you ever read the Constitution? What gives with you?
\\][//
What’s with you? Why did you ignore this part? = something is badly out of balance BOTH of those essential commodities for happiness should be available. NEITHER can be available separately! Or, do you really think so? I’m just saying, stop jerking your knee!
Sorry James,
It is just that; “badly out of balance” seems so meekly put. To me to characterize a system that is totally totalitarian as being out of balance is a remarkable understatement. But you express yourself as you will.
Now a question has stood here unanswered by those specifically asked to on this page and the last. Can you please answer it as one it has been put to?
> Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?
> If so from where does this authority derive?
Please and thank you sir.
\\][//
To hybridrogue1 and Socrates,
I don’t want the comments on no planes that appeared the other day on the previous thread to jump to this one. I believe, HR, that you waited till the comments on that post had dwindled before raising the question. I appreciate that.
You each have comments awaiting approval on this topic. Please resubmit them (change at least one word so WordPress won’t consider it a duplicate). And please choose a thread that focuses on 9/11, not Sandy Hook. One thing I liked about the last thread was how much it stayed on the general topic. As for moving comments, WordPress doesn’t seem to allow that (without a plugin), so if a comment appears in the wrong place then it’s easier to resubmit and then I can delete the earlier one.
Although there are these varied interpretations as to what the truth about Sandy Hook is, I think one thing is crystal clear, and that is that it was engineered in some way. It is too coincidental as to what has proceeded from it, in the way that it was too coincidental in what proceeded from 9/1. This is an unmistakable Modus Operandi of this system. The Motive is also equally clear, popular disarmament.
Whether the above is agreed to or not, this is not the crucial issue at hand. The current attempt to disarm the people is the critical thing to grasp. It is critical to recognize that tyranny is already at hand. Those who don’t see this must have been asleep for the last twelve years.
And those who don’t recognize this have swallowed the hook-line-and-sinker this spurious argument that the Constitution is a worthless ancient document, a memoir from a bygone era.
If one is to assert that the Constitution is “out of date, no longer applicable, etc.” Then one must also admit that those sitting in government are pretenders, acting and speaking as thought it is still a constitutional republic. One has to admit that these people have taken an oath to defend and administer this supreme law of the land. They have spoken with rhetorical lies in praise of a document that they have usurped and despise.
And that all this has become sparkling clear after 9/11, it is a fact that the so-called “federal government” has been Ultra Vires for at least 65 years. This is not hyperbole, this is historical fact.
The “government” is clearly illegitimate by every lawful and reasonable standard. To go along to get along is to pretend along with a sinister charade.
How foolish must a people be to pretend that a tyrannical system is going to do anything other than crush their well-being?
Those who do not recognize who is at war against the people of this nation, who still defend and apologize for this despotic so-called “government” are traitors to their very own interests.
\\][//
But, unfortunately “engineered in some way”, “too many coincidences”, “too many clues in this room” won’t convince the public or anyone else. That’s one problem with us — too many dogs just barking and quite often not enough real evidence or proof that anyone has to offer. That’s why we’re so often derided as “conspiracy theorists”. Now, I’m not saying that everything ISN’T a conspiracy. But, without specific evidence or proof of specific allegations, why should anyone pay much attention? Would YOU, for instance counter to a viewpoint YOU already had, for instance, some proof of man-caused climate change if some were offered? I suspect not. And Jefferson’s remark I quoted is crystal clear, because he was a succinct and effective communicator. I don’t see how you can possibly construe it in any other way or credibly say it was vague in some way. You’re the vague one. Offer us one proof or piece of solid evidence of what you’re alleging. Otherwise, to say you’re probably right would just be concurring with your personal opinion or bias.
Well, Mr. Hydro, to say that our government proceeds “by the consent of the governed” is probably fairly accurate, because the main constituency these days seems to be the big banks, defense contractors, energy companies, and they seem to receive the majority of the benefit of government, don’t they? I don’t happen to think that’s legitimate, no. On the other hand, the elements of the social safety net you decry that is being upheld there days are favored by the majority that clearly won the election. The alternative, according to some, is to go and stick to the opposite of Jefferson’s prescription, and insist on us still being totally governed by men long dead, the framers of the Constitution, instead of governing ourselves. I just wish the sinister powers representing the international super rich and powerful elite in the background who seem to constitute a secret government (NWO) could be unmasked and made to stand down, or prosecuted and put away, so that our constitutional republic (i.e., representative democracy, as set forth in the Constitution) could operate freely. THAT’S POWERFUL, AND NO STATEMENT COULD BE MORE POWERFUL, not even yours.
“the earth belongs always to the living generation.”~Thomas Jefferson
Huffert presumes this: “Which means that the government is and does whatever the bulk of the people at the time want it to”
Although Jefferson also said that the ‘Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots’. And if nothing else Jefferson was an adherent to law. And the law under his own presidency was the Constitution of the United States. In that very constitution is the Bill of Rights which guarantee certain specific rights as well as a clause [the Ninth} that guarantees a penumbra of others to numerous to list.
As both Madison and Jefferson agreed to, is that the Bill of Rights is a protection not only against the government, but a protection against a majority that would pressure the House of Representatives to legislate in the majority’s favor and disregard the rights of minority interests. Now, not only are these rights set in stone constitutionally, they are and have been recognized as in preexistence to any man made law or government. [“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..”~Thomas Jefferson]
To suppose that Jefferson meant that the majority could disregard and act in such a way as to disparage these rights is simply absurd. This is not a “bias” I hold it is a reasonable reading of the constitution and the remarks of Jefferson during his life.
\\][//
“The alternative, according to some, is to go and stick to the opposite of Jefferson’s prescription, and insist on us still being totally governed by men long dead, the framers of the Constitution..”~Hufferd
I do not insist on being ‘governed by men long dead,” I insist on adhering to the principles that formed that Constitution. And those who assume that the Constitution was not seen as a protector of the “common good” is a misrepresentation and misreading of the document. The common good is clearly not upheld by this corporatist state. And the current tyrannical system is clearly under the control of foreign powers in the prospering of the International Bankers – the “Money Powers” as the Founders called them.
In a republican form the people do govern themselves, and it is the republican FORM that has been disabused in the name of a “democratic FORM” ala Wilson. Although the republican FORM uses democratic PROCESSES, it is not the FORM of government established by the Constitution. This is technically speaking a Constitutional Republic. Read the constitution again, that “all states are guaranteed a Republican Form of government”
The confusion over the forms of government and the processes that government proceeds by is common. Nevertheless, in a Democratic Form of government there is direct democracy, which means there is not ‘representation’ but that all participants are involved in each and every issue of governance. This form is simply too cumbersome and ineffective for a population of any size beyond that of the city state.
Let us end in agreement however Mr Hufferd, this “government” of today is illegitimate.
What do we do about that? Stand in defiance, there is no other choice.
\\][//
“Well, Mr. Hydro, to say that our government proceeds “by the consent of the governed” is probably fairly accurate, because the main constituency these days seems to be the big banks, defense contractors, energy companies…”~Hufferd
No, the governed are not so by their “consent” as you assert above. They are duped, and governed by the “big banks, defense contractors, energy companies” that you term the “main constituency”.
\\][//
I hesitate to go into my files to locate citations, but there was a congressional investigation in 1978 that looked into the state of affairs after Watergate. The findings were remarkable. The opening stanza of that report began by stating that the Constitution had been set aside when a “State Of Emergency” was declared in 1933, and that everyone from that time forward had been living under this state of emergency the entire time. That this had been renewed by every administration since that time. In other words the power of the Constitution had been nullified for forty five years by that time.
What was the reaction of Congress to this information? It was argued that too many things had passed since that time to make wholesale changes in all of the statutes and legislation that had passed under the auspices of this state of emergency to be able to do anything meaningful to change course. In other words, it was a done deal, tough luck America, this is now Amerika.
There are details to this affair that are too many to outline here, leave it to say, that what we were left with was a ‘government’ lacking any legitimate claim to the position it held, and still holds. And of course nothing changed but for it got worse – until the point we are today.
One result of these hearings was the proposal and drafting of the ‘War Powers Act,” a piece of legislation that is so fundamentally unconstitutional that it is never cited. The reason it is unconstitutional is that the Constitution cannot be altered by legislation nor statue. And this act acquiesced the congressional power to declare war as clearly defined in the articles of the constitution. All three branches of government are acting unlawfully. The Executive for usurping the war power, Congress for breach of duty in noncompliance with constitutional law, and the Courts for inaction in rectifying the crimes of the other two branches.
This is a clear historical illustration that this system has simply dispensed with the rule of law, and is ruling by diktat, and has been for generations.
\\][//
No, Mr. Water, I don’t think he did. But, we’ve gotten away from the main point — which is that you STILL haven’t stated any specific evidence clearly implicating the government or insiders in Sandy Hook. No one will take your belly-aching seriously until you can deliver, whether your supposition is correct or not. My question again: would you?
I am not clear on who Mr Water is…?
Are you speaking to me Mr Hufferd?
You begin with “I don’t think he did.” I have no idea who “he” is, or what you think he didn’t do.
If you are speaking to me and wish for me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandy Hook was a government black op, then be clear to who you are addressing.
I will state for the record that considering MO and Motive, that it is clearly reasonable to find the government advancing it’s clearly defined agenda as a response to the incident. I would also state for this record that there are too many anomalies to dismiss out of hand. Therefore I think it is extremely likely a false flag operation, and should be considered such in the present discourse until and if there is some mitigating evidence that is more compelling than what has so far been offered by this “government” – keep in mind that guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a right afforded to individuals, not authority. Authority has the duty to prove their case about this incident, they have so far failed in this charge.
\\][//
|”Hybrid – Hydro – Water”|
So now Mr Cow, [Hefferd – Heifer – Cow], I am assuming you are familiar with the thread previous to this one, wherein there is discussion of all of the morphing stories given by the corporatist state media. Are you up on those issues?
Are you of the opinion that there is nothing out of sorts here that a good press conference telling yet another bullshit story wouldn’t solve?
\\][//
All right, you got me. Hydro projects are water projects. Hydrochloride is salt. So, Mr. Salt.
You asked me if I thought Jefferson intended that the government should just act willy-nilly according to popular sentiment, and I answered, “No, I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.” Now, what CASE are you talking about? Is there a “case” pending in which the government, or someone, must speak beyond a reasonable doubt, or more likely than not, or anything else? I hadn’t heard of one. If you have any specific evidence of anything related or adverse, though, I suggest you bring it forward. Because,I hadn’t heard of anything so far that I would expect to cause the general public to doubt the basic account given. If there is anything definite like that, I’m sure we will hear about it. And, if you know of any such evidence, please bring it forward now. Because, THAT’S what it will take! If you don’t believe me, then just watch and see if there are any such great changes in public perception. It’s always possible! But, I don’t think you have anything more than a hunch.
Rougue, I see those random points about lots of different dire matters, but still, no evidence or reference to anything having to do with the case at hand. I thought we had something when it was alleged initially that the fathers of both the Sandy Hook and Aurora shooters were prime witnesses being called in to testify the next day in the Libor case in London. THAT certainly would have raised a lot of suspicion. What became of that allegation, Mr. Rougue? Instead, though, you “went rougue” and started pontificating on everything but the Sandy Hook event. I’m certainly open to being convinced that that was all a set-up (unlike the over a thousand shooting deaths elsewhere since January 1?) So, go for it! Make a case! Don’t just say “it looks.awful suspicious!” Because, again, who will buy that?
As for Mr Hufferd’s itinerant lucidity, his interpretation of Jefferson’s quote simply does not comport with the principles Jefferson plainly espoused his entire life.
Hufferd’s initial approach to me on this thread {January 25, 2013 at 10:49 PM} began:
“According to Jefferson, “the earth belongs always to the living generation.Which means that the government is and does whatever the bulk of the people at the time want it to, ”
After several bouts of his failing to defend this interpretation he turns the argument around to:
“But, we’ve gotten away from the main point — which is that you STILL haven’t stated any specific evidence clearly implicating the government” on January 26, 2013 – 8:46 PM
But the actual fact of the matter is that we had not gotten away from the “main point” that he had brought to me as an argument. While I think it quite obvious this is a tactic to avoid the clear fact that his original point was in error, I wont belabor the point that this is always a good time to change the subject.
But to claim in segue as he did, that I was “pontificating on everything but the Sandy Hook event.” – when it was in fact he that framed the aspect of the issues we would discuss; I find particularly disingenuous – even though it may be in the subconscious working of Mr Hufferd’s thinking that such bald fugitive ambulance derive, the flip and flop is difficult to dismiss without mention.
\\][//
As for Sandy Hook, we have every rational reason for great suspicion as to this being a psyop. It is far from “wacky” to posit that a system that has an encyclopedic count of this Modus Operendi as well as open and stated Motive, it simply would be unjustified on any reasonable argument to give the ‘government’ and the Public Relations Regime the benefit of the doubt.
It is simply a matter of fact that Adam Lanza has not been proven guilty of murdering these people beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been not a single witness to identify him as the killer, of either his mother or the children and adults at the school.
The amount of carnage committed, to be attributed to one shooter in the allotted time is enough to cause reasonable doubt. And this doubt is in no way assuaged by the odd behavior of the authorities and the mainstream press. There is proven fraud in CNN’s helicopter footage of the “police charge at Sandy Hook”, proven to be footage of a drill at a preschool [St. Rose of Lima School in the very same town of Newtown].
There is helicopter footage of BOTH long guns being removed from the Civic asserted to have been driven there by Adam Lanza. [“I found this video that clearly show TWO guns being removed and carried away (around the 2:20 mark). No question about it.”~Craig McKee].
The first reports given by the FBI forensic team stated that there were only two weapons found on the accused and dead assailant. It is absurd to suppose that the rifle now said to have caused all of the wounds would not have been seen or discovered at the scene. it is absurd to suggest that the later reported brass casings amounting to some hundred rounds could have been mistaken for ejected casings from either handgun.
And the reasoning of the authorities has not been consistent with certain facts as we know them to be. There are so many unexplained anomalies, ones that have been gone over and highlighted that it is trivial to list them yet again.
Story Number One NBC:
Original reports were that 3 guns were found at the scene of the Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
2 HANDGUNS [on dead assailant] & 1 ASSAULT RIFLE [found in trunk of Civic]
. . . . . . . . .
The central problem here is that “federal authorities” who ID’d the handguns found at the scene reported two handguns found next to the shooter who was Id’d as Ryan Lanza – shot in the head with one of the pistols.
There was no rifle at this scene, which clearly would have stood out and been next to or close by the body of the dead alleged shooter.
It was only later that Ryan Lanza proposed that perhaps he was ID’d as the shooter because “Adam” had his [Ryan’s] ID on him. This was never cleared up by the authorities themselves.
It is after this first original story came out that the coroner, Carver said unequivocally that all of the wounds of the victims were the result of “the long gun”. It was also reported that casings matching a .223 littered the areas where the shootings took place.
One cannot POSSIBLY mistake the casings of a large .223 with those of either handguns found on the dead “shooter”.
The federal officials [FBI] have never retracted the forensic statements made originally. It has been the reporters and the state police who have continued to spin new stories almost daily…
Yet this has all been tied up neatly in an official story that does not take into account the glaring disparities – the above only being one example.
To take as coincidence that this event sparked that push for Gun Control is simply Naïve, and mortally gullible.
\\][//
You ask what “case” we are talking about Hufferd. Surely you jest. We are speaking to the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Case.
You consider this case closed do you? There is no case made by the authorities that would hold water in court. Absolutely nothing has been resolved satisfactorily. The three suspects that have been spun down the memory hole have never been properly identified nor adequate explanations for their being near the school. It has been offered by the apologists that one of these was a father who was scared by the sound of gunfire and ran into the woods. This is complicated by the fact that this father was actually apprehended inside the school. It was an “off duty SWAT officer from another town that was apprehended in the woods. and he was armed.
There are two other suspects caught at the side of the school [as heard on police radio] that have never been accounted for in any way whatsoever.
A Point you mention. I never took the Liber scandal information seriously, as I had already found the case of Holmes’ father was rumor.
I “pontificated” on the illegitimacy of the “government” to make a point as to their standard MO and the fact of the obvious agenda that this incident has pushed forward.
I stand by my reasoning thus far, and if you don’t find it convincing I am neither surprised nor concerned. And I will say that there will be nothing coming forward that will ever convince the TVZombies of anything but they need to see the newest sitcom, waterboard themselves with coke, and buy the newest electronic gadget.
If you are still concerned about the “reputation” of the 9/11 Truth movement call your congressman and register a complaint, that will do as much good as waterboarding yourself with coke and farting ‘Dixie’.
\\][//
Mass Shootings in the United States Since 2005 –The Brady Campaign
“Newtown, CT December 14, 2012
26 people were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a K-4th grade school. 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, whose mother was one of the victims and employed by the school, was the lone gunman. Twenty young students and six adults at the school died. (26 Dead at Newtown School, NBC, December 14, 2012).”~The Brady Campaign
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf
This is a list of “mass shootings” 65 pages long. One might wonder how accurate the rest of the summations are here.
\\][//
Yeah, Rogue, “one wonders”. That’s as specific as your cries of fraud ever get. And you talk as if there were a court case, requiring evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, or a shadow of a doubt, or some such. I ask you again, what case, in what real court? Not “in this case” or “in case you didn’t know”. No! You talked of a case demanding a certain standard of evidence! So, is there one? And, for probably the fifteenth time, what specific claim do you have any evidence is false, and what evidence? Unless you can provide compelling specifics, no one is going to listen to you, or any complainer in any instance (or “case”, to use your word).
“You talked of a case demanding a certain standard of evidence! So, is there one?”
~Hufferd
Is there a case? Yes, right here, and I am making it.
You ask if there is a court case. Of course there isn’t a court case, the system isn’t going to present any actual case to a court of law. They have no case to make as far as the information that has been spun about on the media.
As I said, I am not surprised that you cannot understand what I am saying here. It doesn’t matter to me whether YOU get it or not, I am speaking to the general audience of this blog, using your listless counter arguments as illustration.
Now, although it will enrage your sensibilities yet again, I am going to point out that the event at Sandy Hook was presented in two major venues. the MSM and the web. The design of this presentation was different for each medium. The MSM played the some old song and dance, “Lone Nut” mantra. But the web was approached much more stealthily; as a provocation the MSM had presented a story so ludicrous as to be laughable, and that was taken advantage of by provocateurs on the web to weave into it grand crackpot theories, using planted video provided by MSM, such as the Parker video with him laughing and smiling in the background. Where did this come from? TV.
Why was the “incriminating” sequence shown of the scene BEFORE Parker made his speech? Why wasn’t it edited out? It would have been very easy to make this look more believable by simply beginning the airing after Parker was in character and was speaking his script. This was done on purpose, to provoke those who are researchers always ready to pick everything apart with a fine tooth comb. It was a “plant”.
The same could be said for quite a few interviews with a very select group of parents, and others who were “involved”…such as Rosen, who is such a perfectly unbelievable character, and scripted to be obvious for anyone who pays attention to his ever morphing script. Another plant. The Greenberg–Sexton–Phelps interview…another obvious plant.
And those who point this out are vilified by the brush of those who wrap them up with those who are claiming that there were no real murders that the entire thing is a hoax.
I was willing to consider a totally staged event for some time, but I was always dubious. But this rests on the meaning of “staged”. And that word can be qualified in many ways. So I will try to articulate what I would mean using the ‘generalization’ of the word. In this way I would say that there are certainly aspects of ‘staging’ – and the first aspect of this is the stage as ‘set’ by the MSM that sets the “official narrative”, which as we know is in fact a kaleidoscope of ever changing lights and shadows.
As such I see this as ‘intent’, a stirring of cognizance and emotions, a spinning strategy of tension. Yes,an aspect of the Hegelian Dialectical process. So again I would mention the process as Design masquerading as Diagnosis. The presentation is portrayed by the Public Relations Regime as “investigative reporting” – but is in fact a working script pre-established. Those behind the PR regime already know what actually happened – they planned and executed the ‘event’.
I still think the bottom line is the agenda to attack the 2nd Amendment. Not only to push ‘gun Control’ but to push the buttons of the gun owners, and in dialectics to push the buttons of those who are totally against guns. The synthesis I see developing from this is a ‘civil war’, now rhetorical – but a situation that could turn Hot__Go Live.
As usual the agenda target is FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. This target will not be possible without first disarming Amerika.
PERCEPTION MANIPULATION.
As I posited before, they WANT this confusion, it causes divisions…it is part of the technique to push forward an agenda to a confused and head-spun population.
This was designed to go viral, counting on the MO of “conspiracy theorists” it has been a trap set and prodded by counter intel which promotes the weaker, ‘far out’ aspects, such as the Crisis Actors scenario, the Parker family anomalies, etc.
This should be seen for what it is, divide and conquer. Now is the time to be very careful, and to explain this for what it is in the overall scheme. The System in pushing for a violent civil war, by provoking the Gun Owners. The responsible gun owners are wise enough to not take the bate of being pushed into an armed insurrection. But there will be provocateurs and firebrands that will promote just that, and they are part of the State apparatus.
It is time to remain cool headed, and for those who grasp what is going on to state it clearly, and for all who get it to stand firm in peaceful and reflective defiance, by making it clear that this is the last line to be drawn. If there is to be blood, it will be drawn by armed invasions of the property of gun owners to take their weapons by force.
Even though it will be self defense to fight back, this will be spun as “Domestic Terrorism” by the Public Relations Regime. The TVZombies will be manipulated into believing that the victims of these unlawful police raids are the real criminals.
It is a tight spot. And I cannot predict the eventual outcome. But I can say that if a large enough protest is made insisting that we are not going to take this laying down, this may be able to defuse without the armed conflict actually taking place.
I don’t really hold out much hope for this to come off this way. I think the System is determined to create this violent confrontation so they can use it as an excuse for crushing harsh martial law. They are well prepared for this. They have set the people in a state of fear and loathing by psychological conditioning, they have and are framing any who speak of freedom, liberty, the Constitution and a demand to the return to the Republic as maniacs and criminals.
[Note: this is what that study by West Point is about -which happened to come out in the same time period as the Sandy Hook event.]
. . . . .
Now back to Hufferd, I am sorry you are incapable of grasping this. But I don’t find it fruitful to argue with you anymore. If you haven’t got it by now you are unteachable.
You may be one who thinks if he publicly disagrees here, that he is setting the record straight so the authorities will see that he is a “good German” and on their side.
If you don’t understand history any better than that, I can’t help you. Everyone, the whole population is the enemy of the state in Tyrannical Systems. You can’t escape by being a “good boy” – you are only ‘good’ for as long as you are useful. But I know my advice falls on dead ears with you. So, good luck man, you and everyone is really going to need it.
EVERYONE should watch this video:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/surviving-the-matrix-by-max-igan/
\\][//
.I still think it worth a ponder, something I was thinking at the beginning of the “news cycle” on the Sandy Hook incident; There may have been a huge glitch in this operation.
One may recall that there had been reports of Ryan Lanza’s girlfriend being “missing”, there were also reports that his father had been killed. This leads me to wonder if both Ryan and his brother Adam were being set up as shooters.
The first reports of Ryan as being found dead at the school may have come from an earlier script, one in-which Ryan had been successfully abducted and his father killed. How ever the girlfriend story fits-in would probably be revealed if the original plan had worked out.
It is only Ryan who has suggested that “perhaps” his ID was on Adam at the scene. No mention has ever been made of what this particular ID was, a drivers licence? a school ID?
What? It is all left in the oh-zone…along with the rest of the kaleidoscopic wonder-wheel this story is.
Keep in mind, I am not suggesting there is any solid proof, nor asserting this is what really happened. I am just looking at all the pieces of this puzzle and attempting to fit in all of the anomalies into a coherent form.
\\][//
One question to ponder is, if it was a set-up (and, personally, I think there are MUCH better candidates among shock events over the past several years), why wouldn’t the perpetrators have planted an at least consistent story from the beginning? It would have left less room for speculation and doubt that way.
“why wouldn’t the perpetrators have planted an at least consistent story from the beginning? It would have left less room for speculation and doubt that way.”~Hufferd
I have just explained that again in the post above this one. That was the WHOLE POINT of Sandy Hook: to create the raging speculation. Read what I have written above, and then watch that video, Igan makes the same case I make in another style.
\\][//
I will also address this point from Mr Hufferd:
“I think there are MUCH better candidates among shock events over the past several years”
. . . . .
Trauma Induction Via Perception Manipulation
First and foremost the Sandy Hook event, involving the murders of so many very young and innocent children is extremely shocking, a very traumatic event, especially in the manner that the TV audience experienced it.
It is not a matter of “stock events”, it is a matter of TIMING, and reading the mood of a people who are being steadily ratcheted up in an ongoing strategy of tension, both with incomprehensible incidents as a ongoing narrative, but personal stresses due to the collapsing economy and dealing with austerity, and the insecurity of how much worse it might get if one is just making it as it already is. There is now a sense of ensuing desperation for many, and many others see it just around the corner for themselves.
All of This Combined Created a Tipping Point
It is obvious that this was an emotional tipping point for the automaton TV watchers, and coming on top of all that has led up to it the event tipped the TV people over the edge of reason into a state of hysteria – the use of propagating the “conspiracy theories” by people like Anderson Cooper is what brought this full on rage.
This is why we must recognize that the whole point of the operation was to create a hysteria that the manipulators can take advantage of while the bulk of the people are hallucinating mad. It is a mass ritual event orchestrated by the hypnotic power of television. The targets for this rage are obvious, those who have broken the trance and recognize what is happening. And they are “defined” in the West Point paper as the “Domestic Enemy”.
This script, this playbook is simply crystal clear if one connects all of these dots. In times like these it is dangerous to be aware. In times like these it is more dangerous to be unaware.
These are simply dangerous times – it is a clear and present danger, the danger of the final onset of full draconian police state measures.
If you aren’t ready to face this head-on, you will be blindsided, and won’t know what hit you.
\\][//
I too have been loosely following the SH incident. Just a couple of observations —
Two (or is three?) potential suspects were running from law enforcement (clearly evident in the chopper videos being widely circulated). So this begs the question of not ‘who’ they were, but why these potential suspects were blatantly attempting to evade pursuing police officers if they were genuinely innocent. Any prudent LEO will tell you that attempting to evade not only corrupts your credibility, but is a good way to acquire painful ventilation… especially in the midst of a reported shooting that just occurred. Conspiracies aside, the following Dec 17, Katie Curic interview http://bcove.me/uojvm2in (or) http://tinyurl.com/apjgexn was rather interesting. While much of what Barbara Sibley and her husband stated seemed contradictory, please note the following snippet from her words…
“I noticed a car… in the… uh… drop-off area in front of the entrance, like a black hatchback… had all the doors open.. and like.. black sweatshirts strewn around it”.
Now examine one of many aerial videos and you’ll clearly see two black object on the passenger side of the suspect’s Honda…. http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/600×3631.jpg — Yes, the aerial videos show that the doors are closed, but I don’t find that particularly odd, since the vehicle was cordon off and perhaps, just perhaps, there was visible evidence laying on the seats, (such as firearms?) that could potentially be accessible. If what Barbara states is true, why then were all the doors open? But more importantly, why the multiple black sweatshirts on the passenger side of the vehicle? Is this indicators of more than one suspect? Now consider again the unknown runners the police were chasing… caught on video. I make no conclusions here, just an observation with what little info is available. Do with it what you choose.
Odd, yes. Questions, yes. It would be great IF THERE WERE an actual court case to effectively explore all questionings. Otherwise, it goes under Unsolved Mysteries.
Is that the way you view 9/11 Mr Hufferd, simply an Unsolved Mystery?
If so I disagree, I think 9/11 is fairly well a solved case and that it is clear it was a false flag PSYOP. It didn’t take a court case to reach this rational conclusion. And I think expecting a just hearing by a judicial system that is simply a front for a despotic system is Naïve Beyond Measure.
\\][//
No! No wonder you would be called “Rogue” — you NEVER stick to the subject! Obviously, I of course meant this Sandy Hook event — which IS an unsolved mystery, and will likely remain no more than, unless processed in an actual court, as I clearly and plainly said. There’s PLENTY of specific evidence brought forth for 9/11; for Sandy Hook, it’s no more than vague and oddities. You’ve been all over. I mentioned Jefferson, and you launched beligeratly into your whole theory of government. Try to actually read what is written before answering.
Mr Hufferd,
I ASKED, and then said IF SO. I did not accuse you of seeing 9/11 that way.
But secondly, as 9/11 was not solved in a court case with subpoena powers, but was figured out by both empirical and circumstantial evidence, that same approach is available for what we have now. It is not a total mystery. What we do know is that there are inconsistencies that have to have been purposely woven into the narrative. This is EVIDENCE. It is evidence of perception manipulation and generating cognitive dissonance.
But beyond that, this event is CLEARLY a provocation for that which is now taking place as an official reaction to it. This is similar to seeing 9/11 as a provocation for the official reaction to it. Cause and Effect. Modus Operendi. Motive. Cui Bono: All classic tools for critical forensic reasoning to understand any event.
If we accept that state secrecy is going to result on our not figuring out what the state is up to then we are defeated before we begin. We do not need signed confessions to judge or prosecute against the state. It reveals itself in the subtext where the hallmarks of deception are discerned.
\\][//
Some more simple questions Mr Hufferd,
If you are convinced that Sandy Hook is an unsolvable mystery, what are you doing here discussing it? Are you attempting to dissuade others from discussing it?
Are you still concerned about the “reputation” of the “Truth Movement”?
There must be something driving the impulse to continue here.
Do you pretend to set the perimeters of what is and is not topical?
Do you still pretend that you did not interpret the Jefferson quote in the context of the principles that Jefferson very lucidly spoke to his entire life?
In short, what is your wont? What is your purpose for this dialog?
\\][//
On the cutting edge approach to journalism and debate on TRUTH AND SHADOWS
Craig,
I don’t know if you realize it or not, but you have really shown some rocks in the last few stories you have presented.
They have brought out the good, the bad, and the ugly of the “Truth Movement” and shown several divides for what they are.
Now some are blaming you for the divides, ones that clearly already exist.
This ‘blaming the messenger’ mentality is telling in itself. There are certain hypocrisies that are so deeply seated that those bearing them have no idea what they reveal of themselves when they honk off on certain subjects.
I for one want to applaud you for your forbearance and fortitude in the fight for real truth, and for seeking it no matter where it leads.
~Willy Whitten \\][//
It is my contention after much historical study, that there are in reality only two forms of government: Oligarchy and First Generation Revolutionary. Within a generation revolutionary government settles in as the new Oligarchy.
And I also posit that ALL government is a racket.
The smoking lamp is lit. Police your butts.
Thank you, \\][//
Once again, no relevance to the subject at hand. And what about the Athenian form, where the membership of the assembly was chosen at random and the leaders (archons) were rotated every year? THAT would escape your crude typology, I believe!
Hufferd,
One police’s one’s butts by twisting the remains of a cigarette so that all of the tobacco falls out. One then places the paper in a pocket until a trash can is available.
The Athenian form was an obvious oligarchy with membership in Athenian citizenship available only to the elites of Athens. That their “process” was a unique form of democracy is beside the main point of the rest of the population having no voice in the proceedings of government whatsoever. The “freeborn” citizen of Athens was not the progeny of slave and serf classes. This position was only available to the aristocracy.
Aristocracy is a form of Oligarchy. Dictatorship is a form of Oligarchy because no man can stand alone regardless of the rhetoric surrounding the “strong man” argument.
The Republic of the several states under the Articles of Confederation, gave way to a centralized government dominated by the elites who formed the Constitution establishing an firmer union. No more than a generation later a conflict ensued creating a state of martial law throughout the entire nation. The final results of that civil war was a National government, not a Federal government as defined by the Constitution. This national government acting under the facade of a Federal false front, has always been a form of oligarchy, this time an Industrial one.
This national government has from that time, the end of the Civil War, become a Corporatist police state. Corporatism is Fascism {Mussolini}. Even though the “democratic processes” have proceeded in this, it is but a charade masking that industrial oligarchy.
And so, this is totally “off topic” in what context Mr Hufferd? In that it is of little concern that any event we speak to today happens in the medium of this now, all encompassing police state?
I submit that the context must be epistemic in largeness if we are to get to the heart of any matter in today’s paradigm.
\\][//
Who are you trying to impress? I think you better police your own butt.
True! State your equally succinct evidence! That’s what I’ve been sayin, for how many rounds now? If you’ve got the goods, go for it!
Keeeyryst on a krakker Hufferd…I have offered you that evidence as succinctly as humanly possible throughout this entire blog. It is in the combination of all of the irreconcilable anomalies of the official story in conjunction with the known modus operendi of the state, it is in the obvious benefit to the agenda of that state. And for you to ask me to detail this yet one more time is to show that you are incapable of understanding what has already been said.
Now YOU answer my questions of JANUARY 28, 2013 – 3:38 PM, before you ask me another single question.
\\][//
Hyderogue, I DID answer that question, at 6:17 p.m. on January 28. You had just MISREAD, as seems to be your tactic, what I had written before. And you have been all over the lot, yelling about everything EXCEPT specifics of the Sandy Hook event. There may be real evidence of official misdeeds regarding Sandy Hook, but, if so, you haven’t cited any of it. You’ve just RANTED.
There you go again! I never said Sandy Hook was an “unsolvable” mystery. I said it would likely remain an “unsolved mystery”, as it is now, unless you or someone could point to some specific evidence. It useless to debate with you as long as you misread and misquote everything I’ve said. Can’t you have a reading disorder?
I will leave it to a candid world who has the reading disorder Mr Huffer.
\\][//
“Hyderogue, I DID answer that question, at 6:17 p.m. on January 28.”~Huffer
My questions on JANUARY 28, 2013 – 3:38 PM were and remain:
>If you are convinced that Sandy Hook is an unsolvable mystery, what are you doing here discussing it? Are you attempting to dissuade others from discussing it?
Are you still concerned about the “reputation” of the “Truth Movement”?
There must be something driving the impulse to continue here.
>Do you pretend to set the perimeters of what is and is not topical?
>Do you still pretend that you did not interpret the Jefferson quote in the context of the principles that Jefferson very lucidly spoke to his entire life?
>In short, what is your wont? What is your purpose for this dialog?
. . . . . .
As you claim these answers are made on 6:17 p.m. on January 28,
I find those “answers”, to be kind about it, ‘somewhat’ lacking.
Perhaps you might try again…
\\][//
I am not sure if this will show as the URL or the video itself. This is an investigative report on Sandy Hook by Mike Powers
\\][//
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SnfmN2N_IrM#t=0s
I just listened to this entire interview and all I can say is WOW there are a whole bunch of things that just don’t fit the SH official story that I did not know about. This interview is well worth listening to but it is my bet that neither Painter or Hufferd will do so.
Call it a hunch but it has been my experience that once people are set on a particular course it is nearly impossible to get them to look at anything that has the potential to upset that course. They tend to dig in their heels and stick to their guns even more so when challenged, especially if the challenge is strong.
It has also been my experience that those same individuals who refuse to look at potentially contradictory (to their beliefs) information and evidence will also apply widely differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument the evidence supports or impeaches. If the evidence tends to support their beliefs it does not have to reach a high standard of quality and/or cooroberation at all. If on the other hand the evidence contradicts their beliefs it is held to extremely high (often impossible to reach) standards.
Examples of this with 9/11 “debunkers” are plentiful. They often insist that we truthers either solve the entire crime completely or that we are completely full of crap since we can’t. It is a disinformation tactic to do that and it really stinks.
Anyway if you want to know why HR1 and myself are convinced that SH is a false flag op then listen to the interview linked just above. The evidence is piling up and if you don’t know what it is then it can only be because you are intentionally avoiding it.
Mike Powers
Sandy Hook Investigation – 30 questions:
What was Christopher A. Rodia‘s car doing at the scene?
Why was it reported as Nancy Lanza’s car to begin with? (Actually the warrant states that it was a relatives car)
Why was a weapon in the trunk?
Why did the media and cops LIE and say that Adam had that car?
Why was the Canadian sub teacher’s car the ONLY one in the parking lot that was shot up?
Why did media and the cops LIE and say that Nancy was a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary when she NEVER WAS?
What happened to all of the other people arrested?
What happened to the reddish purple van with the windows shot out?
Were the parents allowed to see the bodies?
How come we’ve not seen so much as ONE crime scene photo when the media loves NOTHING more than to constantly show us evil’s face?
Why do they keep claiming that the AR15 was in the school when SEVERAL cops reported ALL MORNING that it was FOUND in the BACK SEAT of the car?
How many guns DID little Adam manage to carry around with him? With all that weight, how was he able to remain mobile and dynamic?
Why do Peter and Nancy Lanza only show Ryan on Spokeo as a son?
Why or how was Adam in possession of Ryan’s ID when they’d not seen one another since 2010?
How was Probable Cause established to search the mom’s home when RYAN was the primary suspect all day? The WARRANT was searched on Nancy’s home less than 1.5 hours after the first police dispatch?
Why did the media report Peter Lanza as having been found dead in NYC? ALL….DAY….LONG?
What is Rodia’s connection to all of this? Or his 19yr old niece?
How did Adam get to the school? And WHY? What made him select Sandy Hook Elementary as his target?
Is it not odd that the sub teacher’s body was also not allowed to be seen, and her car was the ONLY one shot up?
Why was her classroom the one with all the victims?
What was up with the Robbie Parker Interview?
What was up with Dr.Carver, and his interview?
He’s seen THOUSANDS of people shot? WHERE?
What did the Medical Examiner Carver mean by “you can control a situation with the right photographer”?
Why does the name J Paul Vance show up as both a CT State Police Lt AND the Commissioner to which the 100M lawsuit was filed to? Would that not constitute a conflict of interest?
Why is now the Mother of one of the pic’s victims coming out saying that her daughter is ALIVE AND WELL?
What was with the Eugene Rosen interviews? Changed statements and stating he was a “psychologist”? Not with only 2yrs of college.
Why were all of the fire trucks BLOCKED IN and BACKED UP to the school?
Who IS Roy Low, and how is he SO informed as to appear in three interviews?
Why would cops place a SUSPECT – in cuffs – in the FRONT SEAT of a police car during an ACTIVE SHOOTER event that is NOT yet over?
…. …. …. ….
This event equals 9/11 in unanswered questions, anomalies, and obvious lies.
I cannot fathom how any 9/11 researcher can look at this and brush it off as if it were some trivial incident having no bearing on the agenda of the tyrannical police state.
\\][//
Nice summation, Mr. Rogue.
Any ANSWERS yet? And, what’s the score, EXONERATING vs. INCRIMINATING answers? That is, do you have any EVIDENCE or anything except that there remain a lot of apparently unanswered questions? No one is convicted by allegations!
Hufferd,
No one was convicted for 9/11 either.
But I can tell you someone who has been convicted on allegations. Adam Lanza. There has been no adequate case made to convict him of any of these murders. Many of the points put forward, especially the likelihood of other shooters is mitigating and possibly exonerating evidence.
Sirhan Sirhan was railroaded for the RFK murder much the same way. But it is impossible for Sirhan to have killed Robert Kennedy, he was shot behind his right ear from less than three inches away.
It was just recently decided in a court of law that the person accused of shooting Martin Luther King did not do it and that “officials from the US Federal government are responsible”
Now, when 9/11 first happened, all we had was that it was impossible to have happened in the way the official story said. But I knew the morning it happened that it was a false flag and hoax. Hallmarks Mr Hufferd – Modus Operendi – Motive.
If you are willing to believe the official account of Sandy Hook, that is your option, be my guest, but don’t approach me with this “crazy conspiracy theorist” bullshit that we have all had to take for the last eleven years about 9/11.
You left the bulk of my questions unanswered above – for as long as you stand on the 5th on those I stand by my “joke” – and you can huff and puff ’till you faint.
\\][//
“I will Huff and I will Puff and I will blow your house down.”
~The Big Bad Wolf
\\][//
Cute! You might as well joke since you can’t answer substantiely! But, maybe someone else here can.
After writing a series of articles documenting the discrepancies and outright lies in the official narrative of the Sandy Hook shooting, Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University shot to international attention when the establishment media began covering his work. Now, Dr. Tracy is left trying to explain the misinterpretations, lies and soundbites that the mainstream media is using to discredit his work. Find out more in this week’s GRTV Feature Interview.
http://www.corbettreport.com/the-sandy-hook-controversy-james-tracy-on-grtv/
\\][//
thanks for this link. I listened to the G&B interview with Bonnie Faulkner. I admire Prof. Tracy for instilling critical thought about what is known from media reports. He’s articulate and points out the anomalies of this event merely with concern, curiosity and open mindedness. One doesn’t have to agree with everything he says, or even the thrust of his counter-claim(s): it’s useful even to confirm the points that he raises re the official narrative. In sum, as tragic as this event may be, there is value in asking questions, esp. when we can no longer rely on mainstream news and analysis .
I didn’t think it was possible – but you are really off the walls here.
None of you sound like you ever had a child in a suburban public school. And what you don’t understand is that these parents know each other – and they pretty much know each other’s children and their children’s teachers. They’ve been at each other’s houses and their older kids baby sat for the younger ones. It is a close community.
So if this isn’t a bogus theory…where are the “Jersey Girls?” Where are the families demanding investigations? What about all those traumatized EMR and police who enter that building? Do they buy the conspiracy story you dreamed up? Where is the Barry Jennings? Did a Building 7 “Fall Down?”
This isn’t “truth” – you have no science – you have no logic. You got nothing here except paranoia that our big bad gummint is coming to take your guns. This is such a stupid excuse to hang onto “your 2nd amendment freedoms” to sell assault rifles to people who are seriously nuts and dangerous.
You’re standing in the way of sensible gun safety laws and you have already give the media lots of ammo against the real truth about 9/11. You make a “tough sell” nearly impossible. So considering the results you’re getting linking nut jobs to 9/11, maybe some among you are doing this on purpose?
Without some common sense gun laws every week is going to look pretty much like last week….THE WEEK’S GUN NEWS:
MONDAY, JAN. 21:
Eleaquin Temblador had plans. He was working to earn his high school diploma and wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps and marry his girlfriend. … Instead, family members are planning Temblador’s funeral. For reasons no one can explain, gunmen in a light-colored, older-model vehicle gunned down the 18-year-old … as he rode his bicycle home from his girlfriend’s house. ~ Dailybreeze.com, Los Angeles
Relatives of a teen who was shot while playing basketball at a local park said the 16-year-old is now paralyzed from the waist down. … Police said the shooter, a 17-year-old boy, had a gun stuck in his waistband. While he was playing basketball, someone bumped into him and the gun went off. … ~ Click Orlando.com
TUESDAY, JAN. 22:
A Baton Rouge man who authorities said was playing with a gun was booked … in the accidental shooting of his 2-year-old brother. … [The man’s uncle] said the teen had armed himself due to “environmental pressure” from neighborhood friends. ~ The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.
The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause “mass destruction.” … Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old son of an Albuquerque pastor … “stated he wanted to shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement,” the [police] report said. ~ ABC News
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 23:
Kansas City police arrested a 16-year-old Ruskin High School student accused of shooting at a school bus after the driver refused to allow him to board on Wednesday. ~ The Kansas City Star
A 4-year-old boy has died after being shot in the head Wednesday. … The deputy [sheriff] located the child’s body inside of a Ford Taurus. There was a bullet hole in the roof of the car. … “Jamarcus loved Batman, Spider-Man and football and was looking forward to starting kindergarten,” [his mother] said. ~ Newsnet5.com, Akron, Ohio
THURSDAY, JAN. 24:
The estranged husband of a woman found dead in her Madison apartment Thursday was found dead in his home … of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. … “We can’t really believe it; I mean, these things happen on TV, they don’t happen to us,” [her stepmother] said. “We’re middle class, normal Americans, and she was a nice girl.” ~ WISC-TV, Madison, Wis.
Police said an 11-year-old girl is in critical condition after being shot in the face by her father in a New Jersey home on Thursday night. Investigators said 27-year-old Byaer Johnson apparently entered the home to visit his young daughter. … He was asked to leave, then picked up a handgun and shot his daughter. ~ CBS News
FRIDAY, JAN. 25:
An Oakland police officer was shot and wounded Friday evening, the second officer in the city to be injured by gunfire this week. … The shooting happened after a man in a car ran a stop sign, crashed into another car … and ran off. Shortly thereafter, an uncle and his nephew reported that they were shot a block away by a man who tried to steal the uncle’s bicycle. ~ SFGate.com
A man has been charged with murder for fatally shooting his brother during a “domestic” dispute outside a South Side Englewood home Friday afternoon. … ~ Chicago.CBSlocal.com
SATURDAY, JAN. 26:
A party in Salem that spilled outdoors ended in drive-by gunfire that hit at least two people and riddled a car and nearby homes. … ~ KOINlocal6, Salem, Ore.
A 55-year-old man has been released from custody after allegedly shooting and killing his own dog. Police say Gordon Lagstrom was drunk Saturday night when he pulled a .38 caliber handgun and shot to death his 4-year-old Australian terrier, Lena.
~ Boston.CBSlocal.com
The city broke a nine-day murder-free streak last night when a man was found dead in the basement of a Queens apartment complex, police said. The 20-year-old victim, whose name was not released, had been shot in the head. ~ New York Post
Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother’s youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car. Police say two separate double-homicide shootings also occurred Saturday about 12 hours apart. … Chicago’s homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008. ~ CBS News
Painter,
You were the first one I asked this simple two part question. That was all the way back on the first thread here on Sandy Hook. After I asked you this you disappeared, going over to another blog to cry and moan that you had been mistreated here. You haven’t been back until now, when you suppose I have forgotten that you have failed to answer.
Rather than this fusillade against the 2nd Amendment I want you to answer this:
Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?
If so from where does this authority derive?
\\][//
Dear Mr. Painter, you wrote:
I resemble this remark; I most certainly understand it.
Which is what makes the sanitized media coverage so curious, because it is not reflecting the level of inter-connectedness that I would expect. Despite being in separate classes, school children share lunch hours, recesses, and after school activities. Where is the “in-your-face” media in interviewing entire classes of children who had at one point played with the deceased?
The Jersey Girls didn’t HAVE to step up until it was clear that the commission was getting stonewalled, slow-walked, hijacked, underfunded… And even then, they did not get their questions answered. Take another look at Mr. Rogue’s 30 Questions above, because after some more grieving time has elapsed, they might be the core of the questions that the “Sandy Hook Girls” want addressed.
We are still at just over 1 month since 12/14/12, with pain still fresh.
Maybe they will go the way of ~ALL~ the families associated with 9/11 airline victims, none of whom (AFAIK) publicly challenged the official story and seemed more than happy with the generous settlements that had conditions of silence. And this is before we question the very existence of those airline victims, given that the alleged commercial plane of 9/11 could not have flown flown the velocities attributed to them at such low altitudes and with such precision.
This isn’t to say that the SH victims weren’t killed or never existed, but we should be mindful that even the 1960’s Operation Northwoods plan presented to JFK recommended generating fake victims.
Great question. What about them? Where are they? In fact, where is the video of them entering and leaving the building? That’s one of the issues. I only see them loitering about. Other than Coroner Carver, none have spoken of what they saw (AFAIK),… if they saw anything.
Just like the leaned-on first-responders of 9/11, they know which side their bread is buttered on.
The SH Barry still has time to come forward.
Nope, but we do have very curious aerial coverage that actively deployed digital masking and chased away other helicopters. And more importantly, we have creation dates of internet things that, by rights & logic, would have no foreknowledge of the SH events that transpired, yet did.
Maybe. But more truthful than this is that “our big bad gummint” did not come forth with science or evidence, either. We only have the word of those paid to step before the cameras. Where are the detailed coroner reports? Where are the bullistics reports? Where are the fingerprint reports on the guns, bullets, cars, and doors? Where is the analysis of the crime scene, with pictures of bullet holes (and blood stains) on the walls? [I once dated a teacher who had a teacher friend at Columbine in Colorado; together we went and helped clean up a classroom — not from the violence but from having everything just left there. Bullet holes were pointed out to me.]
Where are the videos of “the culprit” violently breaking into the school? Where are the videos of the students and teachers leaving? School cameras and the police helicopter, as well as the hordes of media at the firehouse should have caught the orderly procession of the mass of people — several hundred, no?
Where is the proof that Adam Lanza did the deed and alone?
You got nothing in your response except your fawning support of “our big bad gummint.”
I don’t think it is just about guns. It is about mental health. It is about lots of things, CONTROL being the big one. It could be about just pulling another fast one to keep the tension high. I know another shoe is going to fall; this is just the tip.
Ah yes, but what we’re seeing isn’t sensible gun safety laws. It is knee-jerk gun laws. Big difference.
I wish I could find the article again. In the days after 12/14/12, I saw an incomplete article that listed instance-after-instance of someone (usually a youth) who inflicted serious injury on others and/or mostly themselves (e.g., suicide) because they were on mental health medication. Include in the list was just about every major public shooting (Oregon, Aurora, Gifford, etc.) going back to Columbine.
It isn’t just the medicine, but also what they are packing into food, our water, and our skies. (Pay attention to when you have chemtrails and when you don’t; there is a pattern.)
I’m seeing lots of dots, but can’t definitely connect them together. The bottom-line is that we have to have our eyes open, and accepting the first answers media parades in front of — particularly when quickly proven inaccurate and wrong — is foolish.
//
Señor,
The obvious conclusion is that both Painter and Hufferd are indifferent to liberty and are content with tyranny.
\\][//
No. That we’re not indifferent to stupidity.
I agree with this man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxDDpoQSKo&feature=player_embedded
Amen!
I feel empathy for this man.
But there is an issue that goes far beyond the tragedy this man faces, and that is the rule of law. Gun Control is unlawful in the United States.
We have been over the reasons for this too many times Painter. It is obvious from all of your posts that you have one single agenda here, and that is the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, which in fact will be the final destruction of the republic.
And you are on this campaign when it is clear that this “government” is a despotic system bent on enslaving the people of this nation in part and parcel with enslaving the entire planet in a Corporatist Neo-Feudal Gulag.
If these truths are not self evident to you by now, you will surely go to your grave the same fool you are today.
\\][//
I agree with this lady:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiyngtyQTOk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWDHCJNi_F8
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”~Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason” Author of the Virginia Bill of Rights
. . . . .
The incompetency and mismanagement by our totalitarian governing body is evident for all to see, as bridges collapse, water mains burst, gas lines explode, mass transit shuts down and structures deteriorate due to decades of neglect. The priorities of those in power are clearly visible as they spend trillions on weapons used to attack sovereign countries, distribute billions in “aid” to foreign dictators, provide trillions to the criminal banking cabal on Wall Street, and devote billions to technology designed to monitor and control their citizens. Our entire rotting, fetid, bloated, corrupt society has about reached its limits. It is only a matter of time until it implodes like the former Soviet Union.
. . . . . .
“>The polices adopted by the Obama administration just over the last couple of years leave no doubt that they are accelerating, not winding down, the war apparatus that has been relentlessly strengthened over the last decade. In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.
Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent? About all of this, the ACLU’s Executive Director, Anthony Romero, provided the answer on Thursday: “President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day. His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended.”~Glen Greenwald
. . . . .
NDAA: ‘The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.’
In 2012 we’ve seen the Department of Homeland Security and its subsidiary Transportation Security Administration order 1.4 billion rounds of hollow-point bullets (an order that could equal at least four gunshots into every citizen of the United States) and the U.S. Army, through section 1097 of the NDAA, order six bases for airborne drones’ ‘directed mission support’ across the U.S.
This year, too, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Aviation Agency Reauthorization Act. The FAA coincidentally projects that ‘30,000 drones could be in nation’s skies by 2020.’
>”The obvious conclusion is that most Americans are indifferent to liberty and are content with tyranny.
Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the government said was a surprise event does suggest that the event was engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.
“As tyranny envelops the land, the main goal of the left-wing is to disarm the population.
The American left is the enabler of the police state, and the American right is its progenitor.”~Dr Paul Craig Roberts
. . . . .
The establishment pretends it doesn’t like ‘conspiracy theories’ – bullshit, they love conspiracy theories, the more the merrier, the wackier the better. What the establishment doesn’t want is truth.
They promote such theories by their own suspicious and conflicting stories.
The very nature of the National Security State itself is a conspiracy, a secret establishment making an agenda behind closed doors, enforcing secrecy by diktat, and the “magic words” “national security”.
Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in modern history.
Economic warfare consists in destabilizing countries and impoverishing their respective populations. On Black Monday, September 29, 2008 the US was destabilized by the Federal Government of the United States itself.
INALIENABLE
Do you know what that means?
Liberty is not the INVENTION of revolution.
Liberty is the DISCOVERY of the enlightened mind.
. . . . .
>“Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past.”~George Orwell
. . . . .
The majority has been fed a synthetic past, so they will accept this synthetic present, and go willingly forward into a synthetic future.
All who doubt this have been indoctrinated into doubting the truth, and feel pangs of guilt to even consider looking at things that prove the process I speak to; the Hegelian Dialectic.
“Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis”
The synthesis arises from a rhetorical compromise of the thesis and antithesis, the new synthesis is now the thesis, and inherent within it an antithesis. This is the chain that links the gears of the machinery that runs society. It has been so since the concept of Left and Right was introduced by Hegel in the mid eighteenth century.
This dialectical process has been used for centuries vaguely articulated as “divide and conquer”. It was simply Hegel putting the concept into a philosophical formula.
. . . . .
The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
. . . . .
SEDITION:
“Obama to Detail Gun-Control Plans at White House Event 16 Jan 2013 The public debate on new gun control measures gets down to specifics today as President Barack Obama unveils a package of proposals that includes a ban on sales of assault weapons that faces congressional opposition even as a majority of the public supports it. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be joined at the White House by children who wrote the president expressing their concerns following last month’s mass shooting at a Connecticut school, Jay Carney, the president’s spokesman, said yesterday. The announcement is scheduled for 11:45 a.m.”~ New York times.
\\][//
The Constitutional delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military context of the amendment and the role of the militia as a force to defend national sovereignty,quell insurrection, and protect against tyranny.
[SEE: ^ Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, page 258. (“The context of the amendment as he [Madison] originally drafted it is clearly military: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.’ That last clause equates ‘bear arms’ and ‘military service.’ Quakers and other contentious objectors are exempted from bearing arms, which does not prohibit them from hunting rabbits with their privately owned muskets. The Congress actually strengthened the military context, by moving Madison’s explanatory second clause into the first place, as a preamble stating the scope of the law (the regular function of a ‘whereas’ introduction): ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'”]
\\][//
Who has suggested taking away any legitimate-use weapons? Should you be permitted a personal atomic arsenel or bunker-buster? And don’t answer with a taunt.
Hufferd,
The right to bear arms for the defense against the tyrannical state is a personal right.
This would then only include the type of weaponry used by individuals.
And to avoid answering a taunt with another, I would point out that a “atomic arsenal” is clearly beyond the purview of individual arms.
However the arms available should be congruent to modern battle, as such modern military weapons must fall into the category of the individual right to arms. Of course you will balk, but such things as fully automatic weapons {machine guns} and grenades would fall under these terms.
Come out with it Hufferd, would you prefer tyranny? Do you prefer the clear and present tyranny now imposed upon us? Will you demand that all others should fall to their knees in the face of this as you clearly are?
Do you truly not perceive the dire circumstances that we face? You seem to take this as a academic debate taking place in a vacuum. Whereas in reality we face a despotic police state intent on crushing the rights of liberty once and for all. If you understand the present state of legislation combined with executive orders, technically according to these statues and diktat, you have no rights now.
Do you rage against a despotic state that has unlawfully extinguished your rights? No, you rage at those of us who would stand up to this tyranny, and vilify us as if we are somehow unhinged for loving our liberty and deploring this tyranny.
I see your Naïveté as without bounds, and find your meek apologia for this despotic state as totally shameful and pathetic.
\\][//
Again, you’ve ignored my questions: Who has suggested taking away any legitimate-use weapons? Should you be permitted a personal atomic arsenel or bunker-buster? And don’t answer with a taunt. Liberty to commit massacres is not permissible!
“Legitimate use weapons” James? That is some fancy language you are using there. Please tell me sir what is a “Legitimate use weapons” if for example DHS agents come to my door to arrest me as an “enemy combatant” and send me to some hell pit in another part of the world to be tortured and kept without trial FOREVER? Would it be “legitimate” for me to defend myself at all in your view? Would it be legitimate for me to fight tooth and nail with any and all force I had available to me? What if I had a rifle with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds? Would it be legitimate for me to use it or should I just go quietly to Guantanimo Bay? I have been a 9/11 truther for a long time so I am on the list to be “dealt with” you know, in fact I am high on the list. Do you hold that such a thing can’t or won’t happen here?
Well if you do hold that opinion please take a moment to ponder the fact that it has already happened here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac19C-rfMp8
“Again, you’ve ignored my questions: Who has suggested taking away any legitimate-use weapons?”~Hufferd
You have. And Painter has.
\\][//
Just some tidbits and a sliver of hypothesis on the Adam Lanza imagery…
The shot I refer to found at the COTO page I referenced is Lanza, I am certain of that in my own mind.
Now in the other pics of him, Mike Powers makes reference to at least one of those, which I would title the “ghoul shot” – as, according to Powers’ contacts with pro forensic photography, that the “ghoul shot” has been manipulated in Photoshop. That there are “Layers” embedded in the digital profile.
Apparently his face has been slightly stretched in this shot, his eye’s may have been widened.
I would also postulate that this photo was taken during MK programming. And postulate that the fact that Adam simply disappeared by 2010, that he had been at a facility being programmed that whole time.
Again, for the fragile souls out there: I am not saying this with certainty, I am saying it is entirely possible.
As Adam has no police record, and that is Adam in the pic with the deputies putting him into the car, and in my view he is in a hypnotic state; this is photo evidence showing official participation in whatever went down at Sandy Hook.
\\][//
This was obviously shot by the Sheriffs Dept. itself, or at least those involved in this scam. Leaked out so subtly like this, it appears another provocation – as it is so obviously Adam, but cannot be tracked down. I have spent hours looking for this jpg.
\\][//
I tell you, that is Adam Lanza in the teaser shot on the video at the top of the page.
He is in a MK trance, he is dressed for the kill, he is going to be taken to the scene by the cops [Sheriffs Deputies] themselves.
Where did this photo come from? Where? Who was there that knows this?
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/21603/
\\][//
Thanks to Clare Kuehn JANUARY 29, 2013 – 1:37 AM
For this info which should be pondered along with the shot of Adam Lanza with sheriff’s deputies:
Note: an Adam P Lanza is reported dead on the 13th, the day before the shooting, in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) and on Genealogy.com — and it’s now been proven that the birthdate matches the (hitherto unknown) birthdate of our accused lone gunman, and the state (New Hampshire) for his original home matches the state of his death. As to how he died on the 13th, or if it is a clerical error … we don’t know. For information on the link between AP Lanza of SSDI with AP Lanza of Sandy Hook,
see:
http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2013/01/adam-lanza-is-dead-dec-13-same-adam.html
Thanks again Clare, \\][//
“Looks like the kid is T.J. Lane, a mind-controlled zombie who shot 3 people at a school in Ohio.”
http://www.buckeyesheriffs.org/ohio%20sheriffs.htm
By: rkae on January 30, 2013 at 8:39 pm
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/feb/28/officials-student-brain-dead-ohio-shooting/
\\][//
Hufferd,
You have been deeply processed by the current propaganda, it has compartmentalized your mind. This is why there are so many epistemic errors to your thinking. Your thoughts are not communicating with each other, you have no overall context with which to balance one point of view with another through the lens of the epic – the root of epistemology, the “whole picture”, the “panoramic view”.
This programming you received is based on trauma induction, fear and loathing. You fear large scale violence and are so repelled emotionally that you cannot think critically. This is a fatal error, for where it leads is straight to large scale violence. You do not seem to understand that a wholesale taking of arms from those who demand to keep them will be an incredibly bloody conflict – one that will reach beyond the antagonist and beyond to the euphemistic term “collateral damage”. The whole of society will be under strict draconian martial law should the government come to shove on this issue.
You would in fact be safer to stand against this tyrannical attempt to disarm the people, for if most Americans stood as a solid block against such treachery the ‘government’ would more likely back down from such insanity. Instead you join the chorus for disarming the people and lend to the likelihood of such a confrontation.
And again, the reason you do not see this yourself is your fragmented doublethink process induced by propaganda and slick PR. Mark my words, your conscience will haunt you should you live through such a bloodbath, even if subconsciously {as much as your present angst} it will result in further neurosis.
Do you yet not recognize the Tory within.
\\][//
Realistically, you cannot protect yourself against the WMD the gummint has unless you have atomic weapons or lethal gas with a delivery system at your house. So, do you? Now, for at least the third time, will you please quit ignoring and answer the questions I asked? Failure to answer this time will showeveryone clearly that you can’t. Answer, please! Since you have so much dangerous inside information, it should be easy for you.
“Failure to answer this time will showeveryone clearly that you can’t. Answer, please! Since you have so much dangerous inside information, it should be easy for you.”
~Hufferd
Since I have answered in great detail as this thread has progressed, time has already shown that you do not comprehend what I have already written.
And if you are using this for a bluff to stall because you don’t want to answer my clearly put questions, this will also afford a glimpse into your disingenuous argumentation.
I will submit that your entire agenda here is the same as Painter’s – to extinguish the 2nd Amendment, and in doing so leave this society to the chaos that will ensue when the despotic “government” attempts to disarm the citizens by force. Yours is such a fools errand that it is astonishing, simply mind blowing.
And these scewball assertions that we need nuclear or chemical weapons to “protect” against such weapons is absurd. You confuse “retaliation” with “protect”. And you try to pass yourself off as a critical thinker. It’s bullshit, you’ve given this thread nothing but bullshit from your very first post to me misframing Jefferson.
\\][//
“Liberty to commit massacres is not permissible!”~Hufferd
That is the whole point Hufferd, the party most likely to commit massacres is the only party you would leave armed here – that is the despotic government.
[I cite Waco as just one example of countless others.]
You also claim that I again do not answer your question, when in fact I gave a full answer to your question on January 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM.
The only question I didn’t address was, “Who has suggested taking away any legitimate-use weapons?”
And I answered that consequently today above, and will repeat here:
YOU are suggesting taking away legitimate-use weapons, by suggesting US citizens give up the battle weapons that is their right to defend against tyrannical government with.
And further more when you disingenuously claim that I did not answer your question, that is with full knowledge that you have not answered mine, to wit:
>Are you attempting to dissuade others from discussing it {Sandy Hook}?
>Are you still concerned about the “reputation” of the “Truth Movement”?
There must be something driving the impulse to continue here.
>Do you pretend to set the perimeters of what is and is not topical?
>Do you still pretend that you did not interpret the Jefferson quote in the context of the principles that Jefferson very lucidly spoke to his entire life?
>In short, what is your wont? What is your purpose for this dialog?
\\][//
YOU have been bringing up EVERYTHING EXCEPT Sandy Hook evidence, which you now OBVIOUSLY HAVE NONE to point to. And, once again, you didn’t address ANY of my questions, because, obviously, you have no answers. Only insults.
That was a dodge Hufford – you only insult yourself.
You want to banter the 2nd Amendment topic until you get shot down – then you spring back to, “YOU have been bringing up EVERYTHING EXCEPT Sandy Hook evidence”…
Then I go back and explain what I see the evidence supports, while you whine that I am not presenting new evidence. I am not claiming to bring new evidence I am addressing the evidence at hand.
Do you really think your twirlybird flight of scrabbled nonsense is going to get by here unchallenged?
\\][//
I’m through. You won’t (can’t) answer anything, have no knowledge, only cracker slogans and insults. No dialog is possible since you only answer thus. Enjoy & please keep your toys to yourself.
“I’m through.”~Hufferd
Yup, you sure are.
\\][//
“Since you have so much dangerous inside information, it should be easy for you.”~Hufferd
I am getting sick of this bullshit rhetorical slipcraft Hufferd. I never claimed to have “dangerous inside information.”
It is clear from the written record on this very page that I have said nothing to even imply I have “inside information” – I have rather spoken to the information available and analysed what it means. And it is this analysis that you clearly cannot follow, or refuse to follow.
You keep digging yourself in deeper, showing that you are acting the crank on this page. I don’t know who you think you are kidding…apparently only yourself.
\\][//
Ok here we have proof of media manipulation related to the clip Painter posted:
http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-edit-portrays-gun-owners-as-heckling-father-of-sandy-hook-victim/
“MSNBC Edit Deliberately Smears Gun Owners as Sandy Hook ‘Hecklers’
The agenda-driven cable media outlets have stooped to a new low once again in effort to (openly) support those pushing a gun control agenda.
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir claimed that supporters of gun rights attending a public hearing on Monday interrupted the testimony of Neil Heslin, the father of Jesse Lewis, who was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.
A selective edit of the 15 minute testimony deliberately portrayed the gun rights advocates as “hecklers,” by showing some six seconds, including statements regarding ‘the second amendment shall not be infringed.’
What MSNBC chose NOT to show its audience was the fact that Heslin, who favors a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, asked the audience during his testimony, “I ask if there’s anyone in this room who can give me one reason, or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have an — one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high capacity clips?”
The response from so-called “hecklers” came in an orderly fashion only AFTER Heslin followed up on silence to his own question, stating, “Not one person can answer that question.”
The crowd was, in reality, only responding to the claim that no one could answer the question.
See the comparison of the actual testimony with the MSNBC edit below:”
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/heckler-msnbc-selectively-edits-video-smear-gun-rights-supporters
Here we have the latest surveilance drone from Big Brother. Take a look at this and let me know if you feel safe to go out in your back yard and get some sun without being seen? In other words do you have any privacy left? Your right to privacy is GONE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA&feature=player_embedded
Yea Adam,
And they are working on getting thousands of these things over the skies of Amerika as fast and furiously as possible.
We shall experience what Afghanistan and Pakistan have in the near future.
But there are other high tech littler bird to bug sized drones soon to be aloft and buzzing us.
I suggest putting a wasp spray nozzle on spray glue for the wasp sized drones. A shot gun will take out the little birdies. I don’t know where we would get stingers for the larger drones..
maybe electro magnetic interference to scramble their software?
I read on some site a bunch of ways to create home made non-firearm types of gadgets. Things that could launch ‘needles’ by air pressure at such speed they would heat up and pierce armor…tanks and such. Other items to attenuate sound and microwaves aimed at you….Low Tech v High Tech…and all defenses in-between.
The Terminator cometh…
\\][//
When I was working on The THING at Universal Hartland the techs built a air pressure cannon to shoot goopie stuff like the monster did it. They did a test one late night aimed out towards the parking lot. they filled the canister with cream corn and hit the switch….BAM__it shot this stuff all the way across the parking lot and over to the lot next door, owned by Disney. The cars were covered with cream corn.
Their was a bit of a spat between the two studios over that little unintended prank.
Messy …
\\][//
Regarding the “school nurse story” discrepancies:
So there was that report about a “woman in tears” who claimed to be the school nurse and said she knew the gunman and his mother “the kindergarten teacher that everyone loved.”
Note that she NEVER said “Nancy Lanza.”
There was a kindergarten teacher there named Janet Vollmer. Her son is Scott, who works for Bloomberg Media, lives 1.6 miles from Ryan Lanza in Hoboken.
“Sandy Hook Kindergarten Teacher’s Son Is Micheal Bloomberg’s Event Director, Small World Ain’t It?”–rkae
Dear Craig: I would submit to you that we have some troublemakers in our midst on this blog. People who have an agenda to divide and conquer using the tactics of obstruction and filibuster. They also apparently are appalled at dialogue; you know, the reason we are here in the first place. Any way you can make some announcement that in the interest of decorum, people start answering questions presented to other posters on this blog? I’ve presented some questions to Painter that went completely ignored.
HR1 also has asked some very solid questions to other posters that were deflected through the tactics of obstruction and argumentation mentioned above. I don’t want to see this place devolve into a limited hangout where most of the transactions are squabbles.
James Hufferd: You give me the strong impression of either an internet troll or some low-grade (pfc-type of op). I’m glad you’ve announced you’re gone; either way see you later than sooner.
DL, I’m no troll. I just take exception to HR’s refusal to ever addressed questions asked of him and his nonstop tactics of obstruction, fillibustering, and pontificating on anything but the question at hand. Check the record! I answer him and he repeatedly ignores that I answered him or completely (and I’m sure knowingly) twists and mischaracterizes everything I just said, calling me terrible names. Check the record!
And I don’t cower behind a silly made-up name.
Hufferd,
It was my understanding that you were “through”.
But alas, I do agree with your suggestion that we “check the record”. And that perhaps it would be of great benefit for yourself to go back and check the record. Because as it stands; your charges against myself are obvious and provable lies – by that very record.
Be my guest, list the “terrible names” I have called you. And then stand ready to defend against my illustration that such “names” reasonably describe you by your own proclamations.
But if you are to attempt that, I suggest you also stand ready to answer yourself, the several questions gone unanswered by yourself as well as listing specifically which questions asked of me that I did not answer.
My questions to YOU are and REMAIN:
>Are you attempting to dissuade others from discussing it {Sandy Hook}?
>Are you still concerned about the “reputation” of the “Truth Movement”?
There must be something driving the impulse to continue here.
>Do you pretend to set the perimeters of what is and is not topical?
>Do you still pretend that you did not interpret the Jefferson quote in the context of the principles that Jefferson very lucidly spoke to his entire life?
>In short, what is your wont? What is your purpose for this dialog?
\\][//
Dog Lover,
I agree with your assessment, and your pointing out who on this thread were acting disingenuously.
I also think that it was in giving these two commentators enough rope to hang themselves that eventually illustrated that disingenuous character in full display.
So it is again my assertion that Mr McKee has managed the conversation best by managing it least. I am satisfied to let a candid world judge for themselves as to who is genuine in their arguments and who is not.
I certainly can sympathize with your frustrations with the blatant agenda driven nature of our detractors, but I believe it is in such blatant dissemblance that these villains reveal their connection to the thrust of tyranny that they are so obviously content to serve.
When we speak of a “candid world”, we do not necessarily speak to the sodden mentality of the mind controlled masses, but to those with the ability to think critically. And it is the latter that we seek as allies and comrades in the struggle for truth and decency.
I hope that you do not take this as an affront Dog Lover, as I do consider you as a sound thinker and an ally in this struggle for the light of Liberty.
\\][//
” A culture that celebrates the annihilation of whole peoples, casually and without guilt or introspection, is devoid of human values at its very core. Ultimately, such a society turns against itself. It’s not a sudden madness, but a long history of mass murder come full circle.”~Glen Ford
It is said that, there can be no justice in a stolen land…
I suppose that stands to reason as far as karma is concerned. Karma is after all, just the law of cause and effect.
\\][//
Answers to your questions: 1. No, 2. Yes, leveling charges of misconduct or conspiracy when all one has are imaginitive conjectures and no evidence at all tends to discredit even questioners relying on ample evidence, as with 9/11. What about spelling my name every mocking playground way you could think of? By the way, who are you? What is YOUR name?
Hufferd
Again, it would have been better had you reviewed the record before stating your short summation above. I will remind you that I am not Mr Water, as you have forgotten who began the name-mockery. [See: Your post of JANUARY 26, 2013 – 8:46 PM]
My name is Willy Whitten, and I have identified myself on numerous occasions on this blog.
As for your answer to number 1. You give a solid “No”, which I would say is belied by your very conduct on this page. But I will not press the point at this time but move on to your answer to my second question.
This answer misframes mine and others arguments to wit, you claim:
“all one has are imaginitive conjectures and no evidence”…
When in fact I have stated the “evidence” that is no more, no less compelling than the original state of “evidence” that began the search for the truth of 9/11. All of the evidence at the beginning of this search was just as circumstantial, and relied on anomalies in the official story that did no hold up to scrutiny.
I would point out that I have read many of your essays on Israeli/Mossad involvement in 9/11 that rely solely on circumstantial evidence. Evidence that has never been tested in a court of law. You point out the anomalies, and reports that were once verified but have subsequently been lost down the memory hole. You in fact use the very same sort of argument that you now disparage as “imaginative conjectures”.
You have also made absurd argumentation against me, charging me with the very activities that you yourself have used. You assert that I claimed to have some “Dangerous inside evidence” – when I have never claimed to have any such evidence.
You claimed that I did not answer your questions as to the types of weaponry that would fall under the protections of the 2nd Amendment, when in fact I answered that in great detail.
Within that argument you used the absurd notion of having “personal arsenals of atomic weapons and poison gas as well as delivery systems” even making the the totally preposterous argument that we could not “defend” against the use of such weapons by the state unless we have them ourselves; confusing “defense” with “retaliation”.
Now to revisit your charge of “imaginative conjectures”…
Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the government said was a surprise event DOES suggest that the event was engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.
I, see that this is as relevant to Sandy Hook as it is to the issue of 9/11.
There is a long record of the government attempting to use such instances as pretense for disarming the people. There is a vast amount of evidence that many of these nationally promoted “tragedies” are indeed provocations by the state for that very agenda.
I will speak to just three of these events as illustration;
1]The attack on the Sikh Temple – Eye witnesses reported four gunmen entered the temple and opened fire. The official story claims there was one shooter who was subsequently shot and killed by a responding officer. Weapon: semi-automatic “assault rifle”
2]The Aurora Theater [Dark Knight} shooting, wherein several witnesses claim to have seen another shooter. As well as many anomalies that cause great suspicion as to the accused as even being conscious during the event. Weapons; semi-automatic”assault rifle” and semi-automatic side arms.
3]Sandy Hook, wherein NO ONE has identified the killer. Wherein 3 suspects, at least one of these still with a weapon, were apprehended by the police and have fallen into the memory hole, as if it never happened.
. . . . . . .
Now Mr Hufferd, it is my assertion that it does not only the 9/11 Truth Movement, but the search for Truth in all areas, greater harm to read the disingenuous and convoluted arguments you have made on this thread, than any perceived “imaginative conjectures” you posit.
\\][//
Now Mr Hufferd,
There is a clear discrepancy that stands between your answer to whether you wish to discourage a discussion on Sandy Hook [Q1] and your answer to the second question. As you surely will note, your second answer clearly is an attempt to dispel what you term “imaginative conjectures” and charge that this is what whole thread here as being about.
To anticipate your further attempts to answer the other questions let me remind you that you have continued to assert that I am not addressing the topic, by attempting to narrow the topic to “evidence” of Sandy Hook as a provocation. while yourself arguing against the 2nd amendment defenses I have made. It is at once “Off Topic” for you, and “On Topic” for you according to your own pleasure.
As far as your wretched “interpretation” of the quote by Jefferson. You simply cannot defend that with anything in the historical record, nor by any rational argument as the interpretation you give goes counter to everything Jefferson ever said about Liberty, or the structure of the republican form of government.
All we have left for a full answer to my questions is an explanation as to why you are attending these proceedings. I think it is clear, that your entire reason for coming here is to attempt to argue in favor of extinguishing our 2nd Amendment rights to the means of protecting ourselves from tyrannical government. I think it equally clear, that since you yourself meekly admitted at one point, that the so-called “government” is illegitimate.
If sir, this government sits illegitimately, is clearly despotic, and is obviously bent on extinguishing ALL of our rights, not merely the right to self protection, what is your excuse for this flaccid argumentation you have brought to the table here?
\\][//
So, you think that my repeatedly ignored requests that you substantiate the accusatory assertions you made, give responses to my questions, and refrain from introducing instead disquisitions on everything else except sound reasoning and evidence about specific aspects of the Sandy Hook event, mean that I am “attempting to dissuade others from discussing Sandy Hook?” That’s pretty far-fetched, don’t you think?
Hufferd, to be as specific as you are in your comment of JANUARY 31, 2013 – 6:41 PM, I will only say; No, not in the least “far-fetched”.
You STILL haven’t asked a single specific question of me, other than,“Who has suggested taking away any legitimate-use weapons?”
Which I answered very specifically: YOU and Painter.
I have however given the reasoning by which I contend that the incident of Sandy Hook was a provocation, to pit those who insist on retaining their right to bear sufficient arms to stand against a despotic state, against those who have been conditioned to support those who wish to disarm them.
In conjunction with such reasoning I have also given a defense of the 2nd Amendment and the actual meaning of that article. In that dissertation, I also point out that all of our rights to Liberty predate all forms of governmental, that they are natural rights that can neither be granted nor withdrawn by government.
Also I have made the argument that the so-called “government” squatting in DC is obviously bent on crushing all of our rights to liberty.
All of this you hand-wave as not topical, as if you do indeed expect me to come up with some sort of smoking gun “inside information”. I am not privy to the perps, all I can do is look at this and see that nothing stacks up.
So, let me ask you specific questions:
How is it you give the benefit of the doubt to this despotic system? I don’t mean only the “government”, I mean the Public Relations Regime that acts as it’s messenger and mouthpiece.
How is it you cannot recognize the glaring inconsistencies in the ‘official story’ that has been worked and reworked as per Sandy Hook?
And why do you argue so vehemently against those of us who plainly see that there is something seriously ajar here and demand proofs that have been withheld on this matter?
How can you even suggest that it would be wise to turn in our weapons when this “government” has already technically, legislatively and by executive fiat taken away all of our rights?
\\][//
Hufferd, to be as specific as you are in your latest comment:
I will only say:
NO, not in the LEAST “far-fetched”.
\\][//
Numerous Events Throughout President Obama’s First Term Have Been Patently Exploited to Destroy the Second Amendment “Under the Radar”
(AaronDykes) – It should be painfully obvious that the gun grabbers — including the likes of President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden, among many others — are not responding to the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting alone, but are using that terrible tragedy to implement a gun control agenda they have long ago planned, waiting for the right timing to achieve their aims.
1.] Rahm Emanuel tells Attorney General Eric Holder to STFU on gun control in January 2009, at the start of Obama’s first term.
Very early on in Obama’s first term, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly announced that the administration would pursue a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton Administration, but which expired in 2004.
“Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to ‘shut the fuck up’ on guns…”
Clearly, the plan was to remain ‘under the radar’ on gun legislation.
2.] Covert Fast and Furious Program Begins to Demonize Assault Weapons, Second Amendment.
3.] New ATF regulations demand southern border states succumb to greater reporting requirements; purchases of more than two semi-auto weapons more heavily regulated
January 6, 2011.
4.] Exploiting the Tragic Shooting by Jared Lee Loughner and Attempted Assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, January 8, 2011.
5.] Obama Tells the Brady Center He’ll Attack 2nd Amendment “Under the Radar”:
During a March 30, 2011 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady of the Brady Center and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Obama reportedly told the Brady’s “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
6.] ATF Tried To Ban Importation of Most Shotguns:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to ban the importation of all shotguns that didn’t meet a “sporting purpose.” In doing so, it attempted to block shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds.
7.] Attacking Self-Defense Laws Via the Trayvon Martin Shooting;
President Obama shamelessly exploited the Trayvon Martin shooting, famously stating that ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’, further drawing the identity politics of race into the situation, while one member of Congress wore a hoodie on the floor to decry the shooting.
8. Exploitation of the Batman shooting massacre:
While the other cited events exhibit the Obama Administration’s ramped up approach to gun control, the response to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of the Batman film ‘The Dark Knight Rises,’ clearly marked the dawn of Obama’s all out rush for playing public sympathy to achieve his ambitious and unconstitutional agenda.
TIME magazine slammed Obama for ‘missing an opportunity’ by not using the Batman massacre to push for gun control while New York mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded action from the presidential candidates on firearms:
9.] Obama unabashedly admits his intention to reintroduce assault weapons ban during debate with Mitt Romney:
Obama openly declared his intention to reinstate an assault weapons ban during his second term, while further blaming handgun violence in Chicago.
Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein was meeting privately with the ATF prior to the election to discuss the possibilities for new gun control legislation.
To enact it, these gun grabbers needed only await the perfect crisis – at the right time to exploit it and gain ground for their unconstitutional policies.
10]There have been many other significant actions to restrict the Second Amendment by stealth, including Sen. Schumer’s attempt to legislatively prevent veterans (and others) diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses from owning guns. (New definitions of mental disorders are quite sweeping, and threaten to cast a wide net that will indeed infringe upon rights meant to be guaranteed.)
There is also the significant moves towards supporting the United Nation’s controversial Small Arms Treaty that many fear will be used to restrict the Second Amendment, particularly in the areas of import & export. Though negotiations last summer failed, the treaty will be revived for negotiations and is anything but dead.
http://dprogram.net/2013/01/01/top-10-events-that-prove-obama-planned-gun-control-long-before-newtown-tragedy/
\\][//
This is how the Sandy Hook story broke on ABC news:
ABC News, 14 December 2012
[…] The massacre involved two gunmen and prompted the town of Newtown to lock down all its schools and draw SWAT teams to the school, authorities said today.
One shooter is dead and a manhunt is on for a second gunman. Police are searching cars. One shooter was described as a 24-year-old armed man with four weapons and wearing a bullet-proof vest, sources told ABC News.
\\][//
Check these two films out they are as good as the matrix and eyes wide shut.
1) The holy mountain: http://vimeo.com/37625716
2) the brotherhood of the bell (very rare film blacklisted from tv and DVD): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H57JthB_KVc
I have a copy of Brotherhood of the Bell. I can see why it would get that treatment. I think the whole “secret societies run the world” thing hit too close to home.
I recommend this article to all who wish to gain a understanding of the architecture of modern political power, it is a great outline:
Who Really Runs the World?~Andrew Gavin Marshall
The ultimate centre of power in the central banking system is at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in Basle, Switzerland; which is the central bank to the world’s central banks, and is also a private bank owned by the world’s central banks.
http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/marshall16.1.html
\\][//
I posted this comment way up the page but I realized that it was not going to be seen up there so I am reposting it here at the end:
Video originally posted by HR1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SnfmN2N_IrM
I just listened to this entire interview and all I can say is WOW there are a whole bunch of things that just don’t fit the SH official story that I did not know about. This interview is well worth listening to but it is my bet that neither Painter or Hufferd will do so.
Call it a hunch but it has been my experience that once people are set on a particular course it is nearly impossible to get them to look at anything that has the potential to upset that course. They tend to dig in their heels and stick to their guns even more so when challenged, especially if the challenge is strong.
It has also been my experience that those same individuals who refuse to look at potentially contradictory (to their beliefs) information and evidence will also apply widely differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument the evidence supports or impeaches. If the evidence tends to support their beliefs it does not have to reach a high standard of quality and/or cooroberation at all. If on the other hand the evidence contradicts their beliefs it is held to extremely high (often impossible to reach) standards.
Examples of this with 9/11 “debunkers” are plentiful. They often insist that we truthers either solve the entire crime completely or that we are completely full of crap since we can’t. It is a disinformation tactic to do that and it really stinks.
Anyway if you want to know why HR1 and myself are convinced that SH is a false flag op then listen to the interview linked just above. The evidence is piling up and if you don’t know what it is then it can only be because you are intentionally avoiding it.
Adam,
That’s what I have noticed and commented on as well Mr Ruff, that those who wish to dismiss the glaring evidence of the Newtown event as a provocation, have been using the same sorts of argumentation that the “9/11 debunkers” use.
And Painter has even pointed to articles by those who disparage ALL conspiracy theories as the product of nutters, citing Kay, and Sunstein, etc.
Obviously what has split the melon here is the Gun Control issue. And the Leftist apologists cannot get over the L/R Hegelian programming that convinced them that all gun owners are raving rightwing – skinhead Nazi maniacs.
And this is another reason to read the Sandy Hook event as being propagated in such a way as to purposely make a glaringly obvious nonsensical case. It was done on purpose, all the nutball “parent/actors”, not editing out Robbie Parker’s pre-talk laughing and joking, the obviously Photoshopped family pic with Emilie pasted into it. Perhaps even letting Emilie sit on Obama’s lap to be photographed…the circus of what guns were used changing like a kaleidoscope.
I also have that Mike Powers presentation as a transcript. If you would like a copy email me and I will send a PDF to you.
\\][//
Again, no substantive response from you. Only more paranoid blather against all critics..
James,
I quote part of my post just above since you probably didn’t even bother to read it.
“Anyway if you want to know why HR1 and myself are convinced that SH is a false flag op then listen to the interview linked just above. The evidence is piling up and if you don’t know what it is then it can only be because you are intentionally avoiding it.”
You seem to be going on a lot about the “evidence” we are refering to when we say SH looks like a false flag operation so listen to the interview and you will know all about a good chunk of it. If you refuse to familiarize yourself with the information we are talking about that is your fault not ours.
wouldn’t it be nice if the next time something happens like this, that we are ready for it and have our own reponse team that comes in. One that is appointed by the people. We have to stop blindly following the RULES that were all set up by the ones that made the RULES and break their own rules. DO this – look for their authority, your going to find that there is no authority except what we willingly give them. Look up OPPT One People’s Public Trust. The people have already taken over. We are legally in charge now.
I agree with you Kim,
There simply is no legitimate authority in the US today. The so called “federal government” has extinguished all of their authority by extinguishing the Constitution that grants that authority – and ANYONE paying attention can see this with their own eyes.
The Rights of Liberty are NOT a grant from authority, nor even a grant from the Constitution itself. These rights are and have been preexistence to any and all governments and authorities.
The people are indeed on their own, and to survive this crisis must wake up and face that fact.
\\][//
“Police and Dispatch, nation wide, use a very time honored ALPHA PHONETIC System to enunciate alpha numeric data between the officers and the dispatchers. It is different from what military use, and it is so ingrained and dyed into the wool of real law enforcement and dispatchers for a good reason. Any error can cost not only the officer his life, but potentially cost others their lives either by sending people to the wrong address or by implicating the wrong person in a crime, or missing a criminal during a CODE TEN run on the person through the system.
During the course of the running of the black Honda, this ALPHA PHONETIC police and dispatch protocol was totally out the window and not used at all. I listened to that audio last night in utter disbelief. Between the alleged officers running the plate through dispatch, and the dispatcher herself, the data was read to and fro like any normal citizen would read data on a radio. They did not use the ALPHA PHONETIC protocol that is ingrained in both the officer and the dispatcher. While other questions have been raised about these communications, this one is decisive.”~Dennis Cimino
. . . . . . . .
While there are certain aspects of this article that I find more “iffy” than others, I find this particular item quite compelling.
This can be found midway down the page:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/30/the-nexus-of-tyranny-the-strategy-behind-tucson-aurora-and-sandy-hook/
\\][//
I notice the “Hearings” on the Newtown incident are all about “how do we avoid such tragic events in the future?” — with NO explanation of WHAT the event actually was…the same as the 9/11 Commission…the same old tired script…it’s a fuckin’ lollabye.
\\][//
What countering evidence are you aware of that would you want to see presented at Newtown hearings? There’s enormous evidence to present at real 9/11 hearings.
What countering evidence are you aware of that would you want to see presented at Newtown hearings? There’s enormous evidence to present at real 9/11 hearings.*The NO ANSWER HR didn’t provide to this quite sincere request tells us clearly we’re not on anything like the same terrain as with 9/11, where he would have swarmed all over it.*
Hufferd,
Since your question is predicated on the assertion that, “There’s enormous evidence to present at real 9/11 hearings” I insist that you present a portion of the evidence that you would present in “real 9/11 hearings”.
I insist on this process in order to assess what standard you will provide as to what it is that constitutes “evidence”.
As a fair restriction to this “evidence” you are to provide, it must have been collected within 6 weeks of 9/11. And I expect you to supply dates to that effect as to your sources.
\\][//
Teaser from Mike Powers Interview, a must hear or read the transcript:
“I was actually sitting at my computer terminal as the story broke, hearing it as it came out, all day long. They reported certain facts, and then the story metamorphisized throughout the day. The details changed so significantly, that fortunately me and my colleagues started recording all the news broadcasts. That’s what we do, we take what’s said, what’s provided, and then we go back and test it. At the end of the day, the story stunk and it still does….
..This again presents the problem of dynamic flow, first, how did he compromise the door? All security doors are hinged on the inside. ..
”The particular round he used is also very well documented for fragmentation, when it strikes its target, it tends to fragment apart and create a type of form, where it bounces off and goes in different directions.”
“This also leads to yet another problem. They are saying he piled all these kids up in the corner and just started shooting. Statistically and physically speaking I’m not convinced that this round would have the ability to penetrate through that thick off a wall of meat, I apologize for further grotesque reference, but it’s necessary to explain it so people can understand. Penetration is everything, for every inch of flesh that this round penetrates, it looses energy.”
Joyce Riley:“Another report indicated that the door had wire re-enforced glass. If that were true, and somebody would try to knock a hole in this, it might would have been a little bit more difficult, and one would have called 911 the minute someone tried to start breaking it, correct?”
Mike Powers:“It would have been virtually impossible for someone of Adam’s size, lack of stature. Even if it did shatter, it would become so unwieldy, sharp edges, busted glass. Now that’s the thing you really got to think about logically, you have to assume, that the foundation of the front door of an Elementary school is safe, there are regulations in place, state safety regulations. You wouldn’t want a glass door to shatter into 1 billion little glass pieces to shred your child in case of an accident you would want their to be some level of protection, which also indicates there should be laminated glass.”
. . . . . . . . . .
And it goes from there to detail what an obvious hoax-spin we have been fed by the cops and MSM…
\\][//
Neither responding police officers, nor crime scene detectives are legally authorized to pronounce a person dead in the United States. The fact that the victims inside the school at Sandy Hook were not immediately attended to and rushed to hospitals for treatment of wounds or official statements of death by a licensed medical practitioner is not only beyond standard protocol, but is plainly illegal. It cannot be determined on site if a person is legally dead, or perhaps in coma or deep trauma by any but a licensed medical practitioner.
The only personnel inside that school for hours were law enforcement. Only the obviously wounded but still conscious were taken away and treated. No ambulances were positioned less than a quarter mile from the entrance, and the gurneys were WALKED down the streets between oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
The clear absurdities and illegalities that are on full display in photographic evidence is enough to demand a full and complete investigation into the “investigation” that is obviously fraudulent.
Livor mortis victims may have died inside while the police were keeping the waiting medical personnel from entering. By the time, according to reports but unverified, the ‘bodies’ were removed from the crime scene, most would have been entering a state of early putrefaction or rigor mortis. This in itself is beyond protocol to attend to a victim so many hours from the time of wounding or death.
Why did Carver have the giggling jitters at the press conference? Because he understands the above perfectly well.
\\][//
HR, We’re both familiar with the same large evidence base regarding 9/11. Just answer the question if you can, without evasion. And if you can’t refuse.
Because, insinuations not supported by evidence are bs.
Evasion?
To the contrary Hufferd, I contend that the evidence you requested I offer has already been listed here from the onset of this dispute you have brought to me. This is why I insist that you give an example of what YOU consider “evidence”: to find if it is any more substantial than what is now being offered as per Sandy Hook by those you have confronted on this blog.
I suggest you begin here: my post of JANUARY 28, 2013 – 9:45 PM
We are not addressing “unanswered questions” here, we are addressing ‘answers’ that morphed like a kaleidoscope, that do not add-up, and many of which have now been tossed down the memory hole.
The question now becomes, why are you evading making some example of what is to be properly viewed as “evidence” as opposed to a theoretical construct based on confused and anomalous assertions by the authorities.
To be clear Mr Hufferd, the evidence runs throughout this and the previous thread.
It is in what we make of this evidence that is in dispute.
\\][//
I am making no “insinuations” Hufferd, I am coming out plainly and saying that the contradictions of the official story the officials have offered is evidence that they are covering up.
The FACT that all day long the 14th, that it was asserted that the guns recovered at the scene were only two handguns, is simply unbelievable. It is unbelievable that the larger Bushman rifle could have gone unnoticed all day long__impossible.
It is ludicrous that almost every official procedure was ignored both medically and forensically. And Carver is the key to this. He obviously was not at the crime scene in its original condition. It is obvious that he was flying by the seat of his pants at that press conference where he was OBVIOUSLY unprepared to answer substantial questions.
Now, as you refuse to familiarize yourself with all of the anomalies, and yet insist that we are ‘making things up’ – I can only assume, as AdamRuff has, that you prefer to argue from a place of ignorance, because the facts will get in the way of your agenda to disarm the people of the US.
\\][//
HISTORICAL MEMORY
A full understanding and assessment of 9/11 can only be gleaned by the event put into historical perspective. In doing so it becomes glaringly obvious that the official story that al Qaeda was the perpetrator in the event is absurd. Why, because it is ‘remembered’ that al Qaeda is simply a subsidiary of Western Intelligence.
We do not limit our research into the event solely on the events of the day, but combine that with prior knowledge, such as the PNAC document which called for “a new Pearl Harbor” – and then this is combined with the knowledge that Brzezinski, who was instrumental in the creation of al Qaeda , also speaks to the need of a Pearl Harbor like event to manipulate the citizens of the US into going along with the military and economic takeover of the Middle East.
Thus we assess the event in the light of cui bono, the profit that goes to an agenda that is understood as the policy of the ‘government’, and how this policy was put in force due to the events of 9/11.
Likewise; a full understanding and assessment of Sandy Hook can only be gleaned by the event put into historical perspective. In doing so it becomes equally obvious that the official story of a “Lone Gunman” was the perpetrator of this event is highly suspect. Why? Because this event serves to move forward an agenda no less obvious than the agenda to remake the Middle East into an empirical province of the western powers.
We do not limit our research into the event solely on the events of the day , but combine that with the knowledge that ‘Gun Control’ and disarming the citizens of the US has been part of the neoliberal agenda for decades. But more specifically that the current regime has been working towards this agenda “under the radar”…as was stated by the so-called “president” himself, as cited in one of my earlier posts above.
Cui Bono – Motive – Modus Operendi: Three central keys to understanding any event.
“Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the government said was a surprise event DOES suggest that the event was engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.”~Paul Craig Roberts
\\][//
Be interesting to see how Mr. Hufferd enjoins here. In light of the fact that what’s been put out MSM on this incident is so muddied that it would be virtually impossible to present any real evidence from the perspective of viewing from the distance through a computer or TV screen. As in 9/11, one can only speculate as to what actually went down at Sandy Hook because as with any false flag and this certainly has the smell of one, we’re certainly not going to get any truth from the perps that pulled this off. This debate between HR and the aforementioned gets down to nothing more than a positioning to see who gets cast into the position of devils advocate with only one party presenting any logic in regards to the fact of the act.
Veritable, I didn’t say it would be impossible or virtually impossible. I just said that if insinuations are being made, and NOBODY has or knows of any evidence to substantiate any of them, then they’re what we would all have to classify, by definition, as “unsubstantiated”, or bs. They could have a basis. If they do, where’s the evidence that could validate them? Or, do you think unbased allegations become or ennoble the allegator?
What it gets right down to is, the official BS is what sparks the allegory in the first place. It’s a matter of arguing what you don’t know for certain against what others don’t know for certain either. Best one can do is a summation of what appears to be correct which makes this whole line of reasoning moot. All anyone has here is what looks to be correct from their own interpretations. Would I hold HR’s observations from his research as over the top? No, as I couldn’t your objections to what he puts forth either. Point being, it’s not above the TPTB to do this as dastardly as this portends to be. There’s no doubt in my mind that they’ve done these before and have openly admitted to some. It’s a matter of choosing your side of the fence.
My observation, the whole thing reeks.
Veritable,
Hufferd is a crank, he has no intention of being rational in this debate. He has an agenda.
He and painter are both intent in supporting the disarming of the people in the face of a tyrannical state.
You will note he keeps “quoting” Jefferson, when it is obvious he has no clue to what Jefferson was talking about. His distorted views of history are the result of his academic brainwashing. He is an automaton programmed by the system.
Trying to reason with him is like trying to reason with a vacuum cleaner or a kitchen blender. One is programmed to suck, the other to twirl.
\\][//
To tell you the truth Rogue, I don’t give a rats ass what he thinks and I’m not about to engage him in a round about waste of time to nowhere. I find no try on his part to come to any kind of consensus other than to try to out you as having no rational argument or rationalization as to what happened on Dec.14/12 other than his broken record response, “Show me the evidence”. May as well put our tinfoil hats back on and proceed onward through the fog. I wonder if he’s got any dealings with Agent Albury Smith. Google him Hufferd he comes straight up on Vatic Project.
Crank, eh? Another terrible name and more invective hurled, the inevitable “contributions” of a blowhard arguer from no substance.
By the end of today – 1.2.2013 there will have been over 1300 people killed from gun violence – since Newtown.
The mass shootings occur here so often is because of easy access to firearms and high-capacity magazines due to our loose gun laws.
The gun control measures being discussed now – closing the Brady Act’s infamous “gun show loophole” that permits purchases from unlicensed dealers who often do not perform criminal background checks, passing a revamped version of the old Assault Weapons Ban, and prohibiting the high-capacity magazines favored by mass shooters seeking to maximize the carnage they create, are not proposals that would impact the majority of gun owners in any meaningful way. Your “gun grabbing” fears are an unrealistic fantasy.
I see no reason whatsoever to think that Newtown was a false flag attack like 9/11….there is absolutely no political gain from this. It isn’t like starting two wars in the Middle East and blowing up evidence to track a missing $2.3 Trillion….or something logical like that.
I am also sad to say it is most likely that there will be no gun reform because of the powerful NRA Lobby.
There are REAL freedoms being lost right now in America that are seriously worth fighting for. And you don’t have to make shit up about this. Thanks to the Republican/Libertarian War On Women…51% of our population is on the verge of losing the right to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies.
Did you know that half of all women killed are by guns in the possession of a husband or lover? Some threats are real – and widespread – and they are happening right now. Unfortunately, this is common:
http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_morgan_steiner_why_domestic_violence_victims_don_t_leave.html?source=facebook#.UQXbmR-5KL4.facebook
“I see no reason whatsoever to think that Newtown was a false flag attack like 9/11….there is absolutely no political gain from this.”~Painter
Of course you don’t recognize the “political gain”. Because you really don’t give a shit whether you live under tyranny or not.
Because you do not recognize that all of your rights are combined together under the principles of Liberty that are expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Because you fail to recognize the dangers of a militarized despotic state to a population that has been disarmed – and that because you have no historical memory but are only concerned with temporary “security”, which you naively believe will be granted by an illegitimate and tyrannical ‘government’.
I pity your pathetic gullible soul.
And as a final point, I will note that you STILL continue to post your drivel while leaving that question asked of you that now spans two threads of this Sandy Hook dialog.
\\][//
HR, In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson deliberately placed “Life” first, before “Liberty” and “Pursuit of Happiness” for a reason. Without “Life”, the other two are sort of useless, don’t you think? Now, Painter and I could be like you in your “drivel” here and accuse you of showing little regard for human life — which Jefferson rightly placed first, while not disregarding the other two objectives to be secured in a sane and good society such as he and the other patriots who ratified that formula desired.
Crank, eh? Another terrible name and more invective hurled, the inevitable “contributions” of a blowhard arguer from no substance.
I have in fact contributed the majority of substance on this thread Hufferd, while you have done nothing but snipe and whine. The invective you receive is well earned and mild compared to what you truly deserve.
\\][//
That’s not true, HR. You’ve contributed most of the drivel. You KNOW that just talk is not what I meant by “substance”. What is the substance (evidence) you know of that could substantiate your so-far empty allegations that Sandy Hook was a put-up job, or any other unsubstantiated vague and empty allegations you’ve made relative to it? Don’t just come back with invective and insults again. Reaching accommodation, Veritable, would be making good on his so-far baseless allegations. Maybe you can help him out with that.
Hufferd,
I am not in the least bit concerned with your judgments on what is and is not “drivel”, or on anything else for that matter.
\\][//
“It isn’t like starting two wars in the Middle East and blowing up evidence to track a missing $2.3 Trillion…”~Painter
Painter leaves out the most important part of the agenda that 9/11 instigated, the part that directly effects all of our lives here every day; the acceleration of the panoptic maximum security state – the Total State, the one that will only reach final fruition if that state can pull off disarming the Amerikan citizenry.
He seems to conveniently forget that the PATRIOT Act was waiting – already written in the wings. He forgets the loss of Habeas Corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act, the passage of the draconian Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, that torture is now accepted state policy.
That in fact Full Spectrum Dominance is the very definition of Totalitarian.
He forgets or never realized that the so-called “government” has declared war against the people of this nation, as well as the people of the whole planet. He does not recognize that the whole system is patently psychotic.
Now, filled with fear and loathing, he and his ilk insult us with these vile apologetics for this insane system, pretending that somehow they are arguing for “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”..when all they are doing is counselling to go along to get along with tyranny.
Pathetic, pathos, pathological; every word coming from their deluded minds.
\\][//
HR1 I could not agree more with your summation above it is absolutely pathetic that so called 9/11 truthers do not recognize the totalitarian police state we are already in let alone how much worse it would be if they could disarm us (which they can’t).
For a 9/11 truther to be arguing against this reality is ridiculous in the extreme. The logic would have to go something like… “Hmmm they were willing to murder nearly 3,000 of their fellow Americans and cover-up the crime working as a united front consisting of the entire government and media. They did this so that they could, launch several vicious wars of agression that meet the definition of genocide by all accounts, and so they could impliment draconion police state measures that essentially nullify ALL of your rights and ALL of the Constitution. They were willing to do all of that BUT (here is where the “logic” kicks in) they were not willing to execute the children of SH with a team of professional assassins so that they could manipulate the gullible masses into giving up their last line of defense (guns) against the full and overt fascist police state takeover they want to impliment? Yeah right.
This government has perpetraited so many crimes against it’s own people that it would be impossible to list them all in a thousand page book which gave only the fewest possible details about each atrocity. They marched OUR TROOPS right out to ground zero minutes after a nuclear bomb test KNOWING they would be killed by the radiation. You have got to be monumentally ignorant of just how murderous our government really is to even be considering weakening our right to bear arms further than it has been already. You are just begging for a boot to stamp on your face forever, my God.
HR, you have made it perfectly clear that you will only listen to yourself and your own dismal worldview.
We don’t need a bunch of toxic rhetoric aimed at those of us who do not believe that Sandy Hook was a false flag event. It convinces nobody – except that your anger is clearly out of control. The large body counts at Sandy Hook shocked the rest of us – but it merely allows you to blow off steam over your delusional fears about guns – and your fear of losing them.
Do you have any compassion for those kids? Or did your heart get lost in the denial that this was a real and horrific event?
Guns will not protect you from tyranny…but fighting to hold big bank officers personally responsible for gross lending practices would be a start in fighting tyranny. You could learn a little something from Iceland, eh? Then you can demand that the Wall Street boys who played risky games and crashed the economy be investigated and go to jail for that.
But instead, you fight a stupid and useless battle pretending that guns should not be regulated. You don’t watt to allow background checks? You like the idea of guns being sold to felons and domestic abusers? Since Newtown, 108 children and teens have been murdered with firearms. Their ages ranged from 1 to 19. That’s a sick figure….why don’t you want that to stop?
It is not just the 12,000 that are gunned down per year [as if they were not enough], it is the impacts with which those who survive must deal. It is the impacts that society as a whole must absorb. In a time when each and every state, city, and town focuses on reducing their budgets, reducing their staffs deaths by firearms stands as an obstacle, stands as a reminder that we must spend more on law enforcement and prisons and emergency rooms because of gun violence.
Grow up.
STATE OF ULTRA VIRES
There is no law in the United States today. It is a state of delusion to believe otherwise. It is a state of hierarchical anarchy, wherein a national regime masquerades as “the Federal Government” under cover of the Federal Constitution, which they have blatantly set aside and obviously despise. To put it simply, this is a state of TYRANNY. This tyranny is overt today, as before it has been covert.
To assume that this totalitarian state has the welfare and safety of the people as their goal is simply preposterous.
Wise up.
\\][//
Here is a letter I wrote to a friend (who maybe isn’t a friend any more sigh) that I hope Painter and James Hufferd will consider. My “friend” has yet to respond to this letter and probably never will but since it applies here as well I am posting it.
I want to say something in the hope that you will listen with an open mind.
Consider the logic of “gun control” while keeping in mind the fact that guns were already illegal in both the Sandy Hook school and the Aurora movie theater and in both cases the law was ignored completely. So as a point of pure reason and logic gun control doesn’t even work on criminals since they will ignore the law completely. Therefore the intended effect of gun control which is in theory to make us all safer is not achievable through legislation. So with the stated goal of making us safer not even achievable I have to ask what the real reason is for gun control?
In my view gun registration is a precursor to gun confiscation. It was for Hitler and Stalin and Mao who between them murdered over 70 million people conservatively. Now that is mass killing and governments have always FAR AND AWAY killed exponentially more people than all the mad men that ever lived in those same societies combined. Now I could list all the recent efforts by government to take away our guns and ammo and it would be a long and impressive list believe me but would you look at it if I compiled it? Did you know that Rahm Emanuel (Obamas right hand man) recently threatened banks to stop doing business with ammunition manufacturers? Now if that isn’t an overt act of racketeering and criminality designed to take away our ability to defend ourselves I don’t know what is. He is trying to kill the 2nd ammendment right there.
Also keep in mind that guns don’t kill people, people do. If a mad man wanted to kill a whole lot of people but had no gun what would stop him from using gasoline and matches to light a big building full of people on fire? What would stop a guy driving a big rig through a big crowd of people? What if a person released poison gas in a cafeteria or put cyanide in the food? My point is that guns are not necessary for mass killings, in fact fire has the potential to kill a hell of a lot more people. Instead of focusing on the tool a particular mad man uses to do his killings with why don’t we focus on stopping people from becoming mad men in the first place? That seems to me a more reasonable and logical way to go about making our society safer and happier to boot.
I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why you don’t see what a danger our government is to us all. I don’t understand why you want them to be the only ones with effective weapons? They (the government) just purchased literally billions of rounds of ammunition and thousands of fully automatic M16 type rifles that they are passing out to DHS and other fed enforcers. You don’t see the parallels to Nazi Germany?
Lastly as to “nihilism” and the NRA. I don’t belong to the NRA because I see them as controlled opposition, in other words they work for the people trying to disarm us. Nihilism doesn’t fit me at all nor does it fit any other gun owners I know. I think the definition for nihilism is basically extreme negativity combined with apathy towards everything. I am neither negative nor apathetic however I do see a big threat from our “leaders” which in my opinion makes me an informed realist not a nihilist.
I am sad that we seem to be so opposed to each other on this SH thing and on the gun issue but it is the way it is. SH is a false flag op I know it in my bones and as time goes on more and more is going to be exposed about it and it will become undeniable. I won’t get into it here and now but I will on the blog.
I hope you will consider this stuff and talk to me more.”
Adam,
I have to admit I am in a state of wonder..
I wonder what good a “Truth Movement” is that is afraid of the truth?
I have to wonder what could be more obvious than the current Amerikan Police State. It isn’t as if it is acting in a covert fashion anymore. I mean these issues are so in your face that one literally has to be sleepwalking to miss them.
My take is that Hufferd’s whole purpose in life became 9/11, that he has become myopic to the changes in society by focusing primarily on a single issue. And he takes affront that anything could overtake the issue. But that can only be because he doesn’t see the ramifications that that very issue has brought about.
Yes, 9/11 was the pretext for the coming out party of open draconian rule, but dismissing the draconian rule to continue to focus on the pretext that brought it about has obviously become a fools errand. I suppose it could be described as one of those ‘forest for the trees’ things.
But I am baffled by this. And of course it is not only Hufferd. He represents some portion of the ‘Truth Movement’ who seem so self absorbed that anything outside of that direct venue becomes Terra Incognita, some sort of taboo landscape where only loony birds dare tread.
Yes, I am in a state of wonder.
\\][//
HR, you are in a state of confusion. You, and all, can check out my forthcoming article at http://www.911grassroots.org, relevant to your current comment, later today.
There is nothing Hufferd, that can possibly extinguish or excuse the tripe you have presented on the present thread.
Although I am certainly willing to read your article, you should be aware of the above at the outset here. But I am not going to look for it until you post here that it is up on your site.
\\][//
I have just read your article on the “Tupi” Hufferd.
I would first note that, in a technocratic dictatorship, the culture is simply the scum grown in a petri dish.
The so called, “responsible members of society” you refer to are in fact ensconced in a mythical paradigm, are delusional and cannot see ‘reality’ as it is. This society is pathological from the core outward. The electronic media has them in a veritable trance, they are enchanted.
Do you know what the term “veritable” means Hufferd? It means that this is verified by scientific knowledge – as to the effects of watching TV:
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/voodoo-ritual-1/
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/voodoo-ritual-2/
\\][//
The last word I have for Painter and James Hufferd on the gun confiscation agenda they are pushing here is to not waste their time. Not only am I and MANY gun owners NEVER going to allow ourselves to be disarmed but we are also going to bring up on charges of treason all those in government who are trying to disarm us. I will personally be devoting time and effort to remove from office through impeachment Dianne Feinstein and failing that I will be supporting her opponent in the next election with real time and effort. I will be working on nullification measures against all these unconstitutional gun laws both new and old. In short I am going to nullify your efforts to disarm Americans by putting in more time and effort against you than you both are willing to devote towards it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Besides, many of the cops you would have come to our doors to take our weapons away refuse to do so and are nullifying the whole program at the source. As of this writing over 231 US county Sheriffs refuse to impliment Obama’s gun control in their counties.
http://www.infowars.com/231-sheriffs-and-4-state-sheriffs-associations-saying-no-to-obama-gun-control/
American Patriots are rising again and it is great to see. Check out the list of Sheriffs and counties who say “hell no to gun control” at the link above.
It is no secret that the second amendment is currently under attack by a number of authoritarians in Washington DC. Several bills have been introduced in Congress that if passed into law would either dismantle or regulate away the ability of law abiding citizens to conduct transactions involving firearms, ammunition and assorted gun related accessories. These people want you to believe that gun related violence will disappear only if they are able to pass a few gun control laws. If this were true than Mexico which has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet would be one of the safest countries in the world. In reality, these restrictive gun laws have empowered Mexican drug cartels to commit countless murders because the average person is unable to defend themselves from people who operate outside of the law.
We see the same trend in the United States where gun violence is a much larger problem in areas where there are gun restrictions. Chicago and Washington DC are two good examples of this. When the Supreme Court struck down certain gun control provisions that were imposed in these cities, the murder and gun crime rates actually dropped. Schools which are essentially advertised by the media as gun free zones have now become ripe targets for criminally insane individuals because they know there won’t be anyone who will fight back. Anyone who believes that gun control laws will reduce gun violence either has no basic common sense or has an agenda to disarm the people so they can be more easily controlled and potentially enslaved.
Many new gun control bills have already been introduced in the 113th Congress. In this article we are going to focus specifically on the gun control measures that have been introduced in the U.S. Senate.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/02/421652.shtml
\\][//
I thought this thread was about whether Sandy Hook was a put-up job and the evidence for believing that. Why was that topic dropped and replaced by a different question, when the original allegation was never substantiated? Bait and switch?
Hufferd,
Again you prove your inability to grasp the arguments put forth here.
The issue here is about Sandy Hook. As it is determined to be a false flag event by those who have been posting commentary as to such reasoning that comes to that rational conclusion – part of that reasoning involves MOTIVE. The state’s motive is an important factor in this determination.
As such that motive has been show to be to create a dialectical situation in which the Gun Supporters and the Gun Grabbers are left in a Strategy of Tension {to divide and conquer} eventually leading to civil unrest on the scale of civil war, at which time the situation can be ‘plausibly’ held as a pretext for draconian martial law.
Therefore your charges of “Bait and switch” are just as ludicrous as the rest of the tripe you continue to offer here.
Your assertion that, “the original allegation was never substantiate,” rests upon the very same absurd argumentation you have just posted. It has been “substantiated” as far as rational consideration of all the known facts available can provide at this time.
\\][//
HR, You lots of people could be said by others (yourself) to have reason, or motive, to lots of things they never do. Or, maybe your inference of their motive is faulty, in that they never actually wanted to do what you infer they did in the first place. Motive alone wouldn’t get you very far in a reason-based courtroom, for obvious reasons. There are undoubtedly some bastards out there that LOTS of people could be infered to have a motive to murder. Are they murdered by lots of people? Pretty unlikely. Try again! No evidence, no case! End of story!
Huffer,
Your’s are the very same sorts of arguments I used to get from Albury Smith, the infamous 9/11 “debunker” – a lunatic merry’go’round that starts and ends at the same place every time. A trip no nowhere with a nowhere-man.
Although you obviously don’t see it, you are making a bloody fool of yourself here.
\\][//
HR, Making a fool of myself? By asking, albeit fruitlessly, for you to document or back up your dire assertions with at least some little scrap of evidence? I think not.
Hufferd
You attempt to frame your requests in this manner:
“..at least some little scrap of evidence…”
When the actual standard you are setting as far as “evidence” is concerned is that we solve the case decisively – which is linked to your earlier bogus assertion that I claimed to have “dangerous inside information”. This I never claimed.
I asked earlier for you to present what you would consider adequate “evidence”, but you refused in a blast of rhetorical bullshit in words to the effect that “we all know the massive evidence proving 9/11”.
I will again this one last time state, that there is substantial circumstantial evidence already extant on this thread. And if you refuse to review it, that is to the benefit of your own continued preference to argue from a position of ignorance.
And self imposed ignorance is indeed the character of a fool.
\\][//
Bolding mine:
I haven’t chimed in here in a while, largely because the gun debate issue had jaded me, but I feel the need to step in and cry foul at some of the tones being shown to those who disagree.
Now, just for the record, I firmly believe in the 2A. And for the most part, I agree with you HR (and Adam R.) on this issue, having studied how the tyrannies of 20th century dictatorships played out.
However, HR, just on reading your one comment, I would say the boldface parts are out of line. You are belittling someone who has a difference of opinion. I would agree with Paul Z.’s comment from the previous thread: such rhetoric only escalates the hostility level and can contribute to a state of civil warfare among truthers. Your tone reminds me very much of some of the bluster and bravado that the anti CIT contingent used against myself and others at 911blogger.
On the other side, I think Painter is stepping out of bounds with:
But at the same time, I think her tone might be more about fighting back against your tone. Folks, is it not possible to debate the issue and leave the emotional rhetoric out of it?
Craig, I know you want to allow as much “free speech” as possible and not go down the censorship road that sites before us have gone down, but I think a certain degree of enforcement of civility would be in order. You don’t have to use “civility” as an excuse to create a choke hold to suppress free speech, don’t get me wrong.
Incidentally, if you look at 911blogger.com/rules, you’d probably find that you’d agree with their rules — they just never enforced them fairly. For example, if a CIT supporter were to insinuate that someone was an agent, it was bye bye. But if a CIT opponent called CIT and supporters agents, the comment would remain up, it would get voted up, and the offender wouldn’t be punished.
So it’s not a matter of being lax when it comes to civil discourse, it’s about keeping the playing field level.
Dear Mr. Syed,
Hear! Hear! Well said! I agree.
Mr. Rogue and Mr. Hufferd have been reading “passed each other”. Much of what they accuse the other of not providing or not answering was indeed provided to a degree before the demanding, but then they read passed it and are reluctant to review the other’s record for what they missed, resulting in a spirited but tedious spat.
Owing to Mr. Rogue’s negative and pedantic tone, point is award Mr. Hufferd’s favor.
//
I have read and understood every single word that Mr Hufferd has said Señor,
And as far as my “pedantic tone”, it is neither here nor there considering the position of ignorance Hufferd is arguing from. I have described in full and complete manner what those specific ignorance’s are. And if you do not find them worthy of ridicule that is your personal call. But don’t monitor me with your nanny, “Mary Poppins” jive.
\\][//
Rogue, I would consider ANY evidence that tends to confirm the seemingly wild accusation you have leveled as meeting the standard of “some little scrap of evidence”, wouldn’t you? So, what evidence are you holding back?
By the way, for what it’s worth:
My British mother, who several years ago was granted U.S. citizenship, believes in an all-out repeal of the 2nd Amendment. She understands that it was written with the intent that a Navy should be the only bureaucratically organized military, and that the People themselves should be the army. In other words, the way Switzerland does it today. But, she says, since in modern times we have an official army, no need for the 2A anymore. Of course, I profoundly disagree with this.
Painter said to me in a private message (and probably also has said it on this and/or last thread but I don’t have the patience to search):
To address the 2nd part first: I do not speak for Adam Ruff and HR, only myself here: Your 2nd paragraph, Painter, is grossly inaccurate.
I have NO “motivation” for looking for anomalies, inconsistencies, etc. in ANY major media event other than truth. As I said to you privately, one residual effect of the 9/11 (7/7, OKC, etc.) Truth Movement is that people now start questioning, or at least scrutinizing, major events right from the get go. When many of us had our 9/11 epiphany, we couldn’t believe we’d been hoodwinked for several years so hard before waking up.
You do NOT have to believe in a false flag at SH in order to believe the govt is willing to seize upon the event for political purposes. Just as you can still believe the official 9/11 story but realize it was exploited for political gain, as many non-truther lefties feel.
What you said is much like someone saying: ” is the only motivation for the belief that something is fishy about 9/11 and the govt is behind it.” What could that blank be filled with? “Bush hatred,” “denial of the reality of Islamic terrorism,” “a refusal to accept that sometimes chaotic random things happen,” etc. etc. etc.
And finally, it’s not about whether the logistics are there for govt forces to grab 316,000,000 guns from the people. It’s about passing laws and making millions of people outlaws. They can’t grab our guns because there’s no national registry of who has them. This is a good thing imo. Ferdinand Marcos declared himself dictator of the Phillipines, and gave everyone 2 weeks to hand in their guns or face the death penalty. And he knew who had guns because they were all registered.
Adam S.,
I agree with what you have said above. Our only disagreement as I see it is in your sense of affront at my “tone” of argument. My tone of argument escalates only as the preposterous nature of my opponents rebuttals escalate.
Now I have no duty to anyone that I find to be an utter fool to “respect” their opinions nor their persons.
I have gone over the real nature of the technical meanings of ‘ad hominem’ and will not go through this again, other than to say that ridicule of the ridiculous is not banned nor discouraged from reasonable argument.
If you fear the Anglo-Saxon Adam, or it bruises your sensibilities, I apologize, but must herein claim my right to express myself in such a way as I find proper for myself. And I am again; of the opinion that Mr McKee is doing a proper job of moderating this forum, and these continuing pleas to see it moderated as you would, as an academic class in Debate 101 might, be is jejune given the critical nature of the topics discussed here.
\\][//
Hi Adam Syed,
your mother was right, and it would have been wise of you to listen to her – but alas!
One cannot defeat Darkness with Darkness. This is an impossibility. Only the Light got this power.
Hope you’ll take the time to read the following excerpts; for you to better understand what i’m talking about:
“…….
“ – In one area that is equally important to the upbringing of children – namely the area of legislation – human beings can themselves assist in improving conditions on Earth through the enactment of laws that have been carefully considered, laws that do not restrain the initiative of the free will or compel the individual to act against the best and the noblest in every human mind. For laws of coercion of any kind that are issued by the leaders and the rulers of the different countries serve only to promote the power of Darkness and to obstruct the progress of the Light. There must of course be laws to regulate the domestic and foreign affairs of countries and the postures of nations toward each other, but if it happens that these laws compel people to act contrary to their inner conviction, against their conscience, or if the natural development of the free will is impeded, then these laws will have only a destructive effect, and the rulers will have abused their power.
Among such laws of coercion must be counted, for example, compulsory military service.
So long as military service is only “peaceful”, the many open air exercises and the discipline can in many ways have a beneficial effect on body and spirit, provided that the officers and superiors act humanely and do not abuse their authority in a degrading and improper fashion. But as soon as the game of war turns to deadly earnest and the soldiers are confronted with stark reality, facing living masses that will become fodder for their cannons, sabres, bayonets and other weapons, when they know that they will become the cause of the maiming or death of many people, then most of them must do violence to their conscience in order to act in the manner demanded by the leadership of their country. The best and the noblest in the souls of such human beings is often destroyed, since in order to deaden the rising abhorrence for the deed they are about to commit they let themselves be gripped by the din and the fury of battle and act blindly in order to avoid thinking of the horror that is before them. These human beings should never be compelled to commit such deeds, since very often it is they who in the battle’s confusing and degrading turmoil commit the worst and entirely unnecessary atrocities.
But as long as the law governing compulsory military service exists, it is to no avail that single individuals or several in concert refuse to comply with the duty that is demanded by a country’s government, since this kind of insubordination only brings harm to the disobedient and in no way upsets the existing order. In such cases there is but one thing to do: to submit to the duties that are imposed by society, even though performance of such duties clashes with one’s innermost feelings. By acting in this way the individual stands with a clear conscience, while the responsibility for these compulsory actions will fall upon those who originate and enforce such laws.
These coercive laws should therefore be repealed by the leaders, the legislators and the rulers; when they realize that such coercion cannot be in harmony with God’s desires and purposes, the time will have come for the existing laws to be repealed and replaced by new laws.
In order to provide a transition from present conditions to the time when a general and universal peace among all nations is an accomplished fact, all military service should be a voluntary matter, with no compulsion whatsoever of the individual, since responsibility for the many untimely deaths, the many murders and atrocities and the destruction is placed by God upon the leaders, the legislators and the rulers, even though the individual soldier – the aggressor as well as the defender – must give account of all the unnecessary cruelties of which he is personally guilty. On the other hand, if military service is placed on a voluntary basis until further notice, then the chief responsibility will be evenly divided among all the participants in war, the leaders as well as the soldiers in the field.
All warfare is against God’s Will and is in conflict with the laws of the Light, and it benefits neither one nor the other warring nation to call upon God’s assistance as supreme war lord; any supplication to God to bless the armaments or to bless the armies, so that under His leadership they may gain victory over their opponents, is therefore a blasphemous prayer.
Any conception of God as war lord or war leader must be rooted out, since all bloodshed, all destruction, all subversion is completely irreconcilable with the nature of God. Again and again God has sought to lead human beings to a complete understanding of love for their neighbours and respect for all that belongs to them. Time and again ever since the dawn of history God’s emissaries have proclaimed to human beings: “You shall not kill, nor take by force, nor rob, nor plunder!” But so far the appeal has been in vain, human beings have not yet been able to free themselves from the primal urge of brutish self-assertion through violence to the detriment of their fellow human beings. So long as the individual members of the nations of the world do not unite and strive toward mutual peace and forbearance, so long as human beings cannot with complete faith in God’s Fatherliness and Justice place everything in His hand and with trust submit to His leadership, so long as the will of the many is not one with His Will, so long can bloodshed, violence and war not cease, and so long can the hope for peace not be victorious on Earth.
Human beings must overcome the influence of Darkness, overcome hatred, curses, envy and lust for power through belief in God’s existence and by trusting His guidance, rather than through prayers for help to crush their enemies and opponents by acts of violence for God never hears and never answers such prayers.
If it could be conceived that an entire people were united in complete trust in God and in the absolute certitude that no evil arising from ambitious, envious or rapacious neighbours could befall them, then even the most evil of designs would fall to the ground, since it would be lost on so unanimous and complete a faith. But where can such a people be found? Humanity is still in its infancy, and centuries or millennia may pass before full understanding of such an unshakeable relationship of trust between God and human beings can be attained.
Thus, all warfare is rooted in Darkness and is brought about by the mutual intolerance of the various nations, which in turn can be attributed to the lust for power of the leaders and the rulers. If the human will for evil thus calls forth fighting and destruction and a war begins, the nation that initiates the hostilities must bear the responsibility for the war of aggression as well as for the war of defence forced upon the other nation and its allies, regardless of the forms that the war may take. And so long as the attacked nation limits itself to the defence of its country, of its rights, the aggressor will continue to be in the wrong. But the moment the defender extends the hostilities to the territory of the aggressor in order to attack rather than to defend, both sides must share the responsibility for whatever takes place from the moment the border into enemy territory is crossed. (The same laws apply if the battles are fought at sea or in the air).
The victory or defeat of the warring parties can in no way be attributed to God. Never does He take part in the hostilities, neither on the side of the aggressor nor on the side of the defender. Only prayers for help to restore peace will be heard by God, but His many and persistent attempts to speak to the leaders as their “conscience” are in most cases rejected.
The victorious party defeats its adversary by virtue of numerical or strategic superiority or the like, or because of the people’s common hatred of the enemy and the people’s common will to win; but victory is never gained with the help of God.
Any person – civilian or military – who praises, defends and glorifies war in writing or in speech, instead of evoking aversion to this deed of Darkness and enlightening his fellow human beings on the degradation and brutishness of war, is himself placing a heavy burden of responsibility on his shoulders and must, having ended his earthly life, render a detailed account to God of the motivations for his actions.
Even though human beings wage war among themselves, and even though God does not hear their prayers for victory, He never loses sight of them, but seeks either directly or through the disincarnated Youngest to awaken remorse among the leaders, just as He tries in many ways to instil in them an awareness of the injustice and the abuse of power of which they are guilty, so as to bring about a pact of peace before one of the parties succumbs to the superior force; but in the vast majority of cases also these attempts are rejected by human beings.
Many of the disincarnated Youngest gather where the fiercest battles rage in order to minimize by their presence the effect of the erupting Darkness and to divert those accumulations of Darkness that are inevitably drawn to the scenes of battle by the passions that are unleashed, and also to bring the thousands of spirits that were bound to the slain human bodies back to their dwellings in the spheres.
The Youngest will also try, for as long as a state of war obtains, to evoke feelings of compassion and to bring about acts of mercy among those directly or indirectly involved in the war, so as to counteract the influence of Darkness.
The love of human beings for their country is under normal circumstances an excellent and exalted sentiment, but it is ugly and degrading when, aroused by the passions of war, it turns into egoism and self-worship. For regarding this self-overestimation and complacency, human beings must never forget that those men and women who from the earliest times and in the various nations have risen high above the average human being, and who in the service of the Light have exerted a lasting cultural influence on the peoples of their countries in the religious, ethical, scientific, social and political areas, have all been the incarnated Youngest, who under the leadership of God have let themselves be born at those places where at that time there were the best prospects for introducing innovations and improvements. And as even the most advanced human spirits have not yet developed the ability to enrich their fellow human beings either spiritually or materially, nor yet succeeded in raising themselves above the purely human level in spiritual respects, humanity has no grounds whatsoever for self-overestimation or self-admiration, but reason only to thank God for the abundance of the gifts that He has given them through His emissaries.
So that no government by the few, nor by a single head of state,
should in the future be tempted through error of judgment or hasty decision to involve their own and thereby one or more other nations in ruinous and totally destructive war, all states should agree upon a common governing body, consisting of delegates from all the countries and all the factions, to act not as a peace conference meeting from time to time but as a permanent authority whose members are elected for a longer period of office, and to whose hands all the disputes and entanglements of nations will be entrusted for joint resolution; for all disputes of any kind whatsover can and should be settled by peaceful, diplomatic means. For in no respect whatsoever can humanity defend before God its presumed right to settle its disagreements by arms and by force.
If all the nations, all the peoples of the East and of the West, would voluntarily meet in a joint endeavour to achieve a lasting peace, they would be assured of receiving all possible help from the transcendental world under the supreme leadership of God. However, it will be of no avail to establish a general world authority until the will exists in full sincerity and accord to fulfil the hope of “the eternal peace”. But once such co-operation has been agreed upon and initiated it should never be breached, since the nation that deceitfully fails to honour its pledge thereby takes an unbounded responsibility upon itself; because every vow that is broken draws Darkness to those who deliberately commit deceitful acts, and the gathered Darkness will draw the Elder’s recorded future-images forth into reality upon the plane of the Earth and thus for long periods of time hinder the toilsome journeying of mankind.
These proposals for a general world authority or international court of law have in various ways been put forward by human beings in the past, but have not hitherto awakened the proper response and understanding. But with the permission of our God and Father this proposal is hereby advanced from the transcendental world – from the spiritual leaders of mankind – in the hope that those who are well placed to advocate and implement some treaty of this nature will heed these words in times to come.
And when the time comes that all human beings in full understanding should agree to enact an inviolable pact of peace, all manufacture of all kinds of armaments and weapons of war should cease, and never more be resumed.
Through an unbreachable treaty of peace between all the peoples and the nations they will lay a firm foundation for an effective and a fruitful joint endeavour between the children of the Light and the children of the Earth, an endeavour that will in many ways be a great help to the Youngest in their work for humanity, and benefit especially those of the Youngest who are incarnated as human beings.
…….”
(The above was published in 1920. Ref. my thread at P4T).
Cheers
Utopian daydreamer’s chumpblather Tamborine Man,
What do you think the United Nations is but this process which has again been manipulated by the Money Powers, in fact designed and steered by the Money Powers.
You again end up with a One World Order based on a central authority with any such plan as that proposed above. Do you forget so quickly that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Or did it never sink in in the first place?
\\][//
Adam,
You quote me thus:
” Because you really don’t give a shit whether you live under tyranny or not.”
Does the word “shit” unbalance your sensibilities? Or is it that you deny that we are living under a state of tyranny?
You again quote me with:
“I pity your pathetic gullible soul.”
Do you not agree that one who cannot recognize the present tyranny is gullible? Is it not pathetic to remain so gullible in face of the glaring reality of such tyranny and despotism?
You go on to comment
“You are belittling someone who has a difference of opinion.”
Yes indeed Adam, I am belittling someone who’s opinion is dangerous to our rights of Liberty, someone who is ignorant to history and to the rule of Law. This country’s central law is the Constitution. The Constitution has been made Null and Void by the usurpers of this nation.
Now I have asked you as well the same question I have asked Painter and Hufferd, is there some reason you cannot answer?
I will repeat that question for you one more time Mr :Syed:
>
Do you believe that the “federal government” is acting on legitimate authority?
> If so from where does this authority derive?
\\][//
Willy, I tend to believe that if you have just won a national election by a considerable margin, you have some legitimate authority to act on, yes. But I haven’t heard of any legitimate actions being contemplated that would violate any part of the Constitution, the Supreme Court having ruled that some regulations concerning firearms are constitutional and legitimate. BTW, I’m glad you read my article, but disappointed (though not surprised) that you seem to have missed its main point and can’t fathom what quotations around a word (“responsible”) would mean.
Hufferd,
I am not speaking to any recent elections when I speak to the ultra vires nature of the sitting “government” – I have made that crystal clear throughout this entire discussion.
The Supreme Court is not exempt from the charges of sitting illegitimately. The Constitution is violated in toto. If you haven’t noticed that you are asleep at the wheel.
Do you seriously consider the PATRIOT Act constitutional? The NDAA? The dismissal of Habeus Corpus, the expunging of Posse Comitatus? The use of torture as “legal” practice? The recent ruling that the so-called “president” can order the assassination of anybody on this planet including American citizens?
And these are only recent rulings, presidential diktat, and legislative acts.
We can go back to 1947 and the unconstitutional National Security Act.
All of the unconstitutional undeclared wars from that time forward, as well as the use of unconstitutional “Executive Privilege” – to make a rock solid argument that the government has been absolutely illegitimate from at leas that far back if not further.
This tyrannical government is totally unlawful and any apologetics to the contrary are based on pure air.
\\][//
No, the word itself does not, but if I were Painter, I would be turned off by the tone and it would make me want to leave the conversation, probably. It is the condescending tone of the entire sentence, more than the inclusion of the one word.
I personally have not experienced any tyranny in my everyday life. I am a prolific 9/11 truther and nobody has gotten to me or threatened me, let alone sent to a FEMA camp or Gitmo. (The highest degree of tyranny I’ve experienced is getting purged from 911blogger!) But I also saw what happened at the G8 (G20?) in Pittsburgh as well as what happened to OWS protesters, so I’m not under any illusions. The riot police clamping down on our protesters mirrored what police states in other parts of the world have done to their protesters.
Come on, HR. You know that “gullible” and “pathetic” are emotionally loaded words, and words that can easily offend and cause the discourse to go sour.
Not impressed by this; you are indeed admitting to belittling, but are simply rationalizing it by saying it’s OK to do so because the the other person’s opinion is dangerous. Deeming someone’s opinion “dangerous” has been the basis, in the past, for not just belittling, but in some cases, governments wholesale BANNING certain areas of thought. Example: In Taiwan, probably 95-99% of all political opinions are welcome. You’re allowed to hold a sign on a street corner and protest MOST things. One caveat though: You’re not allowed to denounce capitalism, or promote sympathetic views to the way they do it in the communist mainland of China. Reason: Such an opinion is “dangerous” to the national interests of Taiwan. Zoom in to our own 9/11 truth world. Myself, Ruff, and many others were belittled at 911blogger by a specific clique who insisted that our promoting the view that AA77 didn’t hit the Pentagon as “dangerous” to the cause; firstly because it comes across as “obviously crazy” to the general public and turns them away, and because the govt just might release that video someday proving us wrong. Our counterarguments were belittled and voted down, and eventually the moderators purged us. Saying that it’s OK to belittle someone because of a “dangerous” opinion simply does not fly with me.
My honest answer is that I don’t know. I am not sufficiently versed enough on federal laws, statutes, limitations and how they correlate to Constitutional law.
Rogue, No. But your question was whether this present government has legitimacy. Yes, they do, if they would only use it to ACT legitimately — which isn’t what you asked.
It is a sad but true fact that people get the governments they deserve – and which happens in most cases.
In a few cases – like in Denmark – it’s not that sad a fact, taken into consideration the immense immaturity of the rest of the world!
Cheers
“My honest answer is that I don’t know. I am not sufficiently versed enough on federal laws, statutes, limitations and how they correlate to Constitutional law.”~Adam S
Well I am sufficiently versed in Constitutional law. I have studied it for more than forty years. The Constitution cannot be amended by statute. There is no limit to the jurisdiction of the Constitution to any authorities, be they federal, state, or municipal.
There is no limit of time, no sunset clause, nothing to limit the document’s authority.
If you want to learn about the unconstitutionality of Presidential War Powers read, Lewis Fisher’s book, PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS.
If you want to learn about the unconstitutionality of executive privilege and the limits to presidential executive orders read, Raoul Berger’s, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH.
If you want to understand the Constitution read the document itself, it is written in common law language.
\\][//
“Yes, they do, if they would only use it to ACT legitimately..”~Hufferd
Hufferd, that is one of the most preposterous statements you have made here yet.
It is in their unconstitutional acts that they prove their illegitimacy. And this has been so for such a length of time that the whole system is in contempt of the Constitution.
You continue to prove your complete lack of understanding of both Constitutional law and the principles of Liberty that it is founded upon.
\\][//
From Jesse Ventura’s Facebook Page:
“I dont see enough evidence to think Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. This is more of a tragic event turned into political opportunity than it is a staged event. Was there investigative bungling and the sensationalist media reporting unverified stories? Yes. Was there confusion and were facts lost and gained in that confusion? Yes. Are there people, even witnesses, looking for their 30 seconds in the spotlight? Yes. Are there individuals and institutions using and shaping this event for their own political agendas? Yes, and we must keep a very watchful eye on those institutions to keep them from twisting the facts of this event. Sadly, everything I mentioned above can, when taken out of context, make one think manipulation is afoot.
Most chaotic events can come across that way. In examining the event, I don’t see government hands at work mainly because they would have covered their tracks better. We can’t expect them to pull off …elaborately planned hoaxes while at the same time leaving behind so many easy “smoking guns” for us to find. It took years for independent investigators to uncover JFK. It took years for us to begin scratching out the truth about 9/11. Those of us who study real history, not state sanctioned history, can very easily become just as close minded and biased for conspiracy as those who stand in our way and refuse to accept the truth about our government and the people running it.
It’s very easy to fall into that trap, especially when knowing how much of our history and world events are not what they appear to be. So please, do not immediately jump up and yell “Fire!” just because someone makes a YouTube video. Research, research, research. You only hurt our cause by promoting false conspiracies and crackpot agendas. Much like the Birther conspiracy, I am starting to think that a lot of the so called “evidence” of conspiracy coming out about Sandy Hook is designed and fabricated to make us “conspiracy theorists,” us truth seekers, look foolish. Why? So that when good people argue against the destruction of our Second Amendment they can easily be painted with the “crackpot” brush.”
Ventura’s remarks have already been discussed here Mr Hufferd,
And as I said before about this, I don’t think Ventura is the sharpest tool in the shed, and don’t have much use for his opinions.
Are we now to accept your argument from authority? Are we to accept that since Ventura said it, it must certainly be so?
This “confusion” in the early moments of investigations is a common excuse from the authorities as you should well know from your studies of 9/11. The “Incompetence Card” is always played fast and hard by those wishing to cover up manufactured events.
As I pointed out before the very idea that the earliest reports from law enforcement, that lasted the entire first day, that the shooter only had two handguns is absurd, in that a Bushman rifle is too large an item to miss.
Keep in mind that they also misidentified that shooter for many hours of that day, that it was reported that the alleged shooters father had been killed as well as the alleged shooter at that time; Ryan Lanza’s – girlfriend had “disappeared”. These are positive assertions made, that have never been explained. In fact NOTHING has been explained. We are merely to take the authorities’ word on all of this.
\\][//
Willy, I now realize that anybody I could ever quote you’d put down as a dunce. You even took exception with what Thomas Jefferson plainly said TWICE,. So, why should I be surprised?
“You even took exception with what Thomas Jefferson plainly said TWICE”
~Hufferd
Nonsense Hufferd I took no exception to what Jefferson said. I took exception to your misframing of the meaning of what Jefferson said, meaning you are the dunce, not Jefferson.
And this is a perfect example of the rhetorical bullshit we are getting from you here Hufferd. Anyone can verify the above by actually reviewing our exchange on this matter.
\\][//
An Adam S,
Let the forum not forget such jewels as our pleasant Mr Hufferd has tossed to me:
“a blowhard”-FEBRUARY 2, 2013 – 3:49 PM
“paranoid blather”-FEBRUARY 1, 2013 – 10:35 AM
“stupidity.”-JANUARY 29, 2013 – 10:45 PM
“Well, Mr. Hydro,”-JANUARY 26, 2013 – 8:08 PM
And an underhanded tacit use of slipcraft:
“and accuse you of showing little regard for human life” -FEBRUARY 2, 2013 – 1:52 PM
\\][//
Willy, All well earned! And let’s not forget that I gave your “drivel” back!
At least you don’t pretend to be anymore of a “gentleman” than I do.
And as far as your drivel, it is yours to keep, and “well earned.”
\\][//
I think it is unfortunate, both here and elsewhere, that people on both sides are so emotionally wedded to their side that rational discourse can not occur, without the loaded language.
But, Willy, my being descriptive is not ungentlemanly.
Hufferd,
This ping-pong match with you has become increasingly useless.
As far as I’m concerned you don’t know what you are talking about.
So take it up with someone else here, I have no use for what I have determined is your lame jabber and ignorant scrabble.
\\][//
Adam S,
For there to be “rational discourse” both sides of the argument have to be making rational arguments. That is not the case here. I know the Constitution very well, perhaps not as well as HR1 does, but certainly better than Hufferd or Painter know it. In my judgement HR1’s arguments are founded in the Constitution and are sound, solid, reasoned arguments. On the other hand I find that Hufferd and Painter’s arguments are based on emotion and on the CLEARLY FALSE assumption that our government is not completely tyranical. That particular false assumption HAS BEEN FATAL to many millions of people throughout history. It is a VERY dangerous assumption because it leads to the second false assumption that the armed citizens are the real threat to our security and not the tyranical government itself. These two false assumptions proceed from true ignorance indeed and HR1 was correct to say so. The worst thing about this ignorance however is that, because of it, both Hufferd and Painter are actually helping the tyranical government to disarm it’s last remaining counter force, namely US the armed citizens of the USA. If their profound ignorance of history and the Constitution actually wins out then we are all quite simply dead meat.
I recommend that you study the Constitution Adam because only after you truly understand it will you know how dangerous and ignorant those demanding we disarm ourselves truly are. Know it or not Adam your life depends upon defending the Constitution as a whole and in particular the 2A. You and I and even Painter and Hufferd are already in a lot more danger than you realize and the danger isn’t from Adam Lanza it is from government gone mad. Government, the all time undisputed champion of mass killing by orders of magnitude over all others. Here is somthing for Painter and Hufferd to ponder. Our lawless genocidal government (the one they want to be the only ones armed) has killed over a million people in Iraq alone and when you factor in the total population of Iraq that means more than three out of every hundred Iraqi’s is now dead because of our lawless genocidal tyrants running amok. THAT IS MASS KILLING!
I am also amazed that you are not aware of the “tyranny you have experienced in your everyday life”. Just the Federal Reserve and the IRS alone have raped your great grand children already before they have even been born, sold into dept slavery. You and they and all of us have been raped so hard and in such repitition by them that the only way I can explain your statement of not experiencing tyranny in your daily life is by chalking it up to the stockholm syndrome.
I totally disagree. The Constitution was framed not as a shackles, but as a blueprint for continuing self-government. To quote Jefferson, “The earth belongs always to the living generation.” You may not like that he said and thought that, but he did. And I know you don’t like me saying this, but it’s true — if you want to know what I have to say about the meaning and history of the Constitution, read my book (forthcoming in print, available now on Amazon as an e-book), TROUBLESOME COUNTRY. Then come back and talk to me.
No no no Huffy, it was from a treatise on pop tarts by Jack the Ripper cited in the London Times of sometime in the hell in nistic period that spoke to the credo of what is and isn’t gentle about man. Perhaps a toaster?
\\[?]//
Sandy Hook: ‘I’m Sorry Governor, What Did You Say?’ –Video by revmichellehopkins
10 Jan 2013 Conn. Governor Dannel P. Malloy:
“Earlier today, a tragedy of unspeakable terms played itself out in this community. The lieutenant governor and I have been spoken to in, in an attempt that we might be prepared for something like this playing itself out in our state.”
\\][//
Although this is a very good one and gets to the bottom of what’s going down. (Been a busy day finding good ones and putting them out) This is what I meant to attach to HR’s comment.
http://youtu.be/OZCos8cXiWY
“Police spies stole identities of dead children”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/police-spies-identities-dead-children
I suppose if this can happen in good ol’ England, then i see no reason why the same cannot happen “in the good ol’ land of the free”!
Now i “wonder”: if this could have anything to do with what happened on 9/11 and what happened in Sandy Hook …..and elsewhere!!
See what’s happening?
But in truth, i’d rather go for ‘certainty’, in lieu of mindless speculation …….anytime!
I’ll wait for something more ‘substantial’ to come up, but in the meantime –
Cheers
Good man!
RogueHybrid, you’ll never understand Jeffersonson. He wasn’t the libertarian god you think, and my quotes are standard and well-attested. And the Constitution, mostly Madison’s creation from a consensus of expressed views, wasn’t intended as a shackle, but a blueprint for self-government. Go ride your trike now! Don’t shoot any baby rabbits!
Hufferd, why don’t you come up with something that’s going to set the other readership here straight instead of berating HR. If that’s all you got then shame on you. At least HR puts out a question about what comes across to be an anomaly to be questioned on Sandy Hook. I haven’t seen anything from you that is any ways convincing at all.
Here Hufferd, here’s your democracy at work instilling confidence that they’re on guard for thee. Now they can see 19 terrorists putting boxcutters in their pockets before they board the airliners. Another scare tactic? Indubitably so.
“RogueHybrid, you’ll never understand Jeffersonson.”–HuffyPuffyJimmy
I have never contested the quotes by Jefferson. I contest your Marxist interpretation of Jefferson, and your communist reinterpretation of the Constitution. The pinko gas blowing through the seat of your trousers here is obvious to anyone with a grasp on the continuities of history.
Why don’t you admit it Huffer, you read Professor Louis Michael Seidman’s lunatic rant with glee, it was your inspiration – as it was so many of you closet commies who see the fruition of your insane brave new world so close at hand.
. . . . . . . . . .
“This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.”~Professor Seidman
. . . . . . .
This is commie vomit.
\\][//
Oh, RH, so now you’re Joe McCarthy, calling everyone’s not fanatical a communist — that’s hilarious! Go back to the 50s!
Huffer, I asked you what you thought of Professor Louis Michael Seidman’s call for dispensing with the Constitution. Are you going to dodge and weave this one like every other question asked of your here?
After all you have been making the same argument he has throughout this thread, attempting to squeeze even Jefferson into your communitarian mold.
\\][//
HR, I never heard of him or it. No, I think what’s needed is to put into practice and follow our Constitution. Of course, as amended, not with slavery recognized, for instance.
You dolt! What do you think of Ismail Kadare’s novels? Never heard of them? That’s no excuse! You’re dodging my question! Yada yada yada yada!!!! Now you’re exposing yourself.
“I think what’s needed is to put into practice and follow our Constitution.”Hufferd
That may sound consoling to the casual reader Hufferd, but it doesn’t satisfy me. I have had a taste of how you interpret things here. If we are to rely on your “more ideographic”, or “Ideological Interpretations,” we are no longer dealing with the text of the Constitution, we are dealing with a non-congruent template of ‘Intent’, built on the assumptions of your own intent.
This is totally obvious in your interpretation of Jefferson that began our discussion. You view this as “well he must obviously meant this because it is the best idea” – regardless of the context of Jefferson’s own principles, which is the only proper context to read him in.
And his text, like all text must be read for what the words actually say, and follow his reasoning without tampering with it ideologically. What the man is saying is diametrically opposed to the the context that you place his words in.
So what I read from your subtext is that your would read the Constitution from a socialist perspective. I know this perspective well Hufferd. That is what I see in you.
The nail on the head here is your stand against the Constitution itself in speaking against the 2nd Amendment. Its meaning is clear by historical and textual fact. It is unlawful to legislate in ultra vires of the Constitution, gun control is unlawful in the US by the Supreme Law of the land.
Only Kafkaesque interpretations of the amendment can pretend that any gun controls whatever are lawful. The only way this could happen was drip by drip, for “practical” reasons. It matters not how “practical” an act is if that act is beyond the authority that makes that act. “Practical” has a very limited and short sighted perspective according to some.
From a larger holistic perspective, the balance of virtue is best served by a long term view of acts in progression that are not lawful but temporarily “practical”. And this long term view is in history. And history shows vividly what attention to the temporary short term practicality regardless of law inevitably leads to ruin and despotism over the the masses.
\\][//
HR, you veritably don’t know what you’re talking about at all here. What’s your definintion of a socialist?
Huffer,
I am knowledgeable of the information on the “Non-Profit Foundations”, and how academia was infiltrated by the Hegelians [See: Wunt] who were intent on creating a system of compatibility between Soviet thinking and the Neoliberal thinking in the US and western world.
You are not so much a ‘commie’ as a “Statest” synthetic mind. And of course you will bitch and moan because you do not grasp what has been the brainwashing regime you have been processed through.
As you will not grasp this, my post here speaks to those who know enough of the history of this Hegelian program and how it was infiltrated into the system. I would cite both Antony Sutton’s work, especially SKULL AND BONES. As well as Iserbyt’s THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA. Also the work on THE FOUNDATIONS, which is usually found by search engine merely by pasting the capitalized words there into the browser.
Of course Carroll Quiggley’s work is essential to these studies.
Finally, grasping the infamous Protocols – also essential reading.
\\][//
I’ve read Quigly and Sutton. I’m pretty much an independent thinker, more ideographic and certainly not a structuralist, Hegelian or otherwise. If you want to learn from my take on U.S. history, I’d recommend my e-book TROUBLESOME COUNTRY, on Amazon. It’s also coming out in print from Progressive Press in a month or two. Where can I find your tomes, o thinker?
Jeeze, children, children. Now we’re down to comparing who has a bigger dick.
Stop being a bigger dick.
Thanks, I’m flattered
After all, you brought up Quigly and Sutton. I just said I was familiar with them.
Dear Mr. Veritable1,
This is ~not~ your home court of COTO where you can pad your responses with vulgar references. When the vulgarities are removed from your last comment, ain’t much there at all. Hardly worth your time, and certainly not worth ANYBODY else taking the time to read either.
I will refrain from claims of “stalking” in that you followed Mr. Rogue’s links to T&S and have posted here. Mr. Rogue doesn’t need a dedicated “yes-man” follower here.
It doesn’t bother me that most of your postings on COTO lack substance, but this is a different playing field with different rules. If you want to play here, step up your game, add more substance, and refrain from the vulgarities that discredit you as much or more so than whatever arguments you make.
//
Hear! Hear!
I would say to you James that simply publishing your thoughts on a given subject does not make your thoughts any better or smarter than anyone else’s. So this little passive aggressive attempt at an insult towards HR1 fell flat on its face. I have read what you have written here and am not in the least bit impressed by what you have said or by the knowledge you posses. In my estimation HR1 has literally run circles around you, especially when it comes to analysis of the Constitution and Jefferson. You are way out of your depth here, not because you are any less intelligent that anyone else. but because you are arguing from an emotional standpoint and about subjects you are clearly ignorant of (i.e. The Constitution, Jefferson).
It is really all a moot point anyway because the battle lines have already been drawn and what is going to be is going to be. Your opinions about guns are irrelevant because people like myself are fully prepared and equipped to defend ourselves from any and all people who wish to further encroach upon our liberty. Enough is enough I have drawn my line in the sand and that line will not be crossed while I am alive.
From all I can see, HR is nothing but a proudly-vulgar slasher, lashing out with big words he doesn’t know the meaning of inappropriately, insulting from his anonymity anyone who dares disagree with him, with no justification at all calling them communists, socialists, infantile, or whatever else. I notice, don’t you? that very few people even try to participate in this blog, because he loudly and profanely dominates it and in effect yells obscenities at anyone who dares bring a different perspective, accusing them of what is apostasy and treachery in his eyes, insisting on a barbarous, lawless anarchy, and then asking his opponents why they aren’t more moderate. I take it you agree with him that guns are beyond all regulation, regardless of the consequences. Right?
Dear Mr. Hufferd,
I disagree with your assessment that Mr. Rogue “doesn’t know the meaning of [big words]”, because he does and he can wikipedia more. Also, I disagree that he does his actions “from his anonymity,” because he does regularly publish his name.
This being said, however, you are correct in your other assessments:
A cantankerous curmudgeon with a bit too much time on his hands in retirement is what Mr. Rogue aspires to be, as he enlightens the world. [He is a valued contributor, mostly.] Because he is much worse on his home COTO court, he’s had to show restraint here where in his year-long tenure he’s had his hands slapped a few times and had his own crafty & clever insults back-fire on him in the face of being addressed as “Mr. Rogue.”
Mr. Rogue has waxed philosophical about writing his memoriors of his very interesting life. But, alas, the allure of misconstruing someone’s argument for the purposes of a crafty flame war is to him irresistible.
//
“the allure of misconstruing someone’s argument for the purposes of a crafty flame war is to him irresistible.”~Señor
This charge of “misconstruing someone’s argument” is utterly without foundation Señor.
If you could bring an example of what I have “misconstrued” in Hufferd’s argumentation, I would be very interested in assessing that.
\\][//
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I wrote:
Mr. Rogue responds:
No, it is not. Neu nookiedoo, Dr. Wood’s work, September Clues… Been there, done that. Got lots of links to strawmen arguments from you (and you KNOW it, too), but I will refrain from boring the forum with that 9/11 retro-fair and another revolution of a carousel. My comment was from my experience, not Mr. Hufferd’s.
And to be fair-and-balanced, I wouldn’t classify the misconstruing “tactic” as a normal or regular occurence, but frequent enough to be an annoyance. An annoyance on both our parts: you were annoyed with my persistance in holding on to nuggets of truth, which led you to annoy me with your debate tactics, because you do love to be engaged in heated battles that allow you to craft clever insults and demonstrate your dominance. [If a person starts out life as an autodictat genius, ain’t nobody can teach ’em nuthin’.]
I haven’t been following your discussion closely except to note that you two are reading passed each other. But hey, if you must have an example, ask Mr. Hufferd. I’m sure some of the “-ist” charges (socialist, communist, anarchist) might be in his examples.
//
“I haven’t been following your discussion closely except to note that you two are reading passed each other.”~Señor
In other word you haven’t a single item to back up your assertion. As I am fully aware of already. If you don’t want to pay full attention to an argument it would be wise not to pop off and reinforce your position as a fool.
\\][//
Bravo! Spoken like a pure Authoritarian!
Thanks for your verification! He does misuse many words he throws around, though, or follows only his own creative redefinitions.
Shoooooooooooot, Mr. Hufferd! “He does misuse many words he throws around, though, or follows only his own creative redefinitions.” Maaaaaaan, that’s his (and my) complaint of Dr. Fetzer (w.r.t. NPT and video fakery).
“He does misuse many words he throws around, though, or follows only his own creative redefinitions.”~Hufferd
Citations of such, if you would.
\\][//
I’ve given you several. How soon you forget! Legitimate government, for one.
So what EXACTLY did you mean by “extremist” James?
Hufferd,
To even suggest that Obama was elected legitimately is a ridiculous statement since we know for a fact his predecessor W was fraudulently and illegally given the presidency by the supreme court who stopped the recount that was clearly exposing the massive vote fraud used to “win” him the election. Greg Palast documented this very well in his book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”.
Obama himself was fraudulently elected by this same rigged game. Dennis Kucinich was BY FAR a better candidate in every possible way for the democratic ticket but he was sytematically eliminated by the media black balling him from debates and proper coverage so he could get his messages to the voters. Ron Paul was similarly eliminated from contention by the same process and there is STRONG EVIDENCE that he actually won the republican nomination in several states but the vote was rigged to install Romney as the candidate. So both candidates in the election were installed through fraud and are definately NOT LEGITIMATE!
Furthermore Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and is therefore illigitimate on that count as well. He has repeatedly and flagrantly violated the Constitution he swore on oath to protect and defend and is not only illigitimate because of that but also a criminal.
There is ZERO legitimacy in the present regime Mr. Hufferd and you are quite obviously living in a dream world to believe otherwise. HR1 is spot on accurate in his evaluation of you as a “good German”. “Legitimate” my ass!
This video speaks quite well for itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI&feature=player_embedded
Whoh yea Adam,
The video of the Asian American “American by choice” is superb testimony before the commission. Excellent presentation.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
\\][//
From Hammurabi to Bologna to the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus
Common Law is simply the accumulation of laws and statues that have proven reasonable and just throughout the ages. As these laws and statutes are originally written in a great variety of languages, and translated into others throughout time, a translation into the Common Language of all such laws is the basis of what is termed “Common Law”.
That common law as stated are the core principles that make up the language of the Constitution, and was written in the common English of the era. The English language has changed in so few ways, that a reading of the document today by a reasonably intelligent individual, it is understandable without deferring to the statutory codes now structured primarily in Latin and using much of that language’s terminology.
The Constitution then is the seat of all of that statutory law expressed as the supreme law of the land. This Constitution cannot be altered by new legislation and the passage of new statutes, for within the document itself are the lawful mechanisms for amending it. Simple legislative action is forbidden, and the procedures of amendment must be followed.
\\][//
An extremist on an issue is someone who takes an extreme position on it. Like Rogue objecting to and claiming illigitimate any attempt at regulation whatsoever on weapons would be at one extreme on that issue. Can you give an example of anyone being or how anyone could be more extreme than that in that direction on that issue?
Following the Constitution is not “extreme” Hufferd. Oh and do not think it passed my attention that you avoided my entire post about the illigitimacy of the regime in power.
I have seen this tactic of avoiding the arguments that decisively rebutt your positions used so often that I am not even surprised anymore. I say the “government” is not legitimate and I listed my reasons and evidence clearly. Now because your position that the sitting regime is legitimate has been crushed you simply plan to ignore it, slip in some subject change or another, and then simply re-use the argument later as though it was never rebutted. That is disingenuous behavior and I have seen you do it in relation to the “evidence” SH was a false flag discussion as well. I answered you on that point and HR1 has responded several times as well and yet you repeatedly claim no one has presented any evidence to support the contention. Dishonest sir.
You are a classic prototype I have unfortunately dealt with many times before. When cornered you evade or pretend the cornering never happened. I have news for you sir, when an honest person is shown to be wrong he/she admits it and learns from the mistake. People like you cannot even admit that any argument that proves them wrong ever even existed, they pretend the words were never even spoken. Well the words have been spoken sir and your arguments have been decisively discredited. The fact that you ignore that reality and refuse to acknowledge that any such thing ever happened doesn’t change the fact that it did. You probably don’t even fully read the statements you take exception to and argue against.
You are the “extremist” sir because you are the one who wants to eviscerate the Constitution and leave all Americans totally defensless against a clearly illigitimate tyrannical regime that can very easily switch to a “hot” tyranny where thousands or millions of us are put to death. That is my definition of an extremist and you fit it perfectly.
But, why are you shifting the subject? I was saying his position on the subject of firearms is as far to the extreme end in that direction as you can get. Re-read my post.
“But, why are you shifting the subject? I was saying his position on the subject of firearms is as far to the extreme end in that direction as you can get. Re-read my post.”~Hufferd
Mr Ruff is not shifting the subject but speaking directly to it and pointing out that in fact YOU Hufferd, have the most extreme and unlawful position on firearms.
Neither the “government” nor the majority can lawfully impinge on the law written clearly in the Constitution.
To urge and promote the breaking of law is the most extreme of acts.
\\][//
No Rogy, he too shifted the subject. Check it out — I guess you didn’t do that before disagreeing as always.
Wonderful Mr Ruff,
As to your remarks of February 8, 2013 – 1:43 AM:
I had intended to speak to that issue of “extremism” on pretty much the same terms you just have. Bravo, you put it very succinctly.
Hufferd was done-for as soon as he started – he simply never realized it, like he doesn’t realize reality before his very eyes. But he is a good example to put under the glaring lights of critical reason and watch him melt like soft wax.
\\][//
Rogu, what in the hell are you babbling about? This string of words has absolutely nothing to do with the question or statement raised. It’s just an attack based on NOTHING, except possibly whisky (my guess).
“Rogu, what in the hell are you babbling about?”~Huffer
WTF are you whining about? Are you speaking to the term, “extremist”?
If you are, that string of words makes all the logical sense in the world. Even if you disagree with it, it is a cogent and rational argument. Pretending it is “babble” is a very thinly veiled dodge of not addressing the points I made.
Again, the MOST EXTREME case is one who promotes the extinction of law. You make all these cry baby squalls about my being an “anarchist” and “extremist”, while you have plainly and openly made your case against law. That law, I will remind you yet again is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
The West Point paper also tries to frame “Constitutionalists” as rabid terrorists and crazies. And you are trying the same tactic here. It won’t wash. It is vile filth.
\\][//
SOCIALISM…once again:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850)
The underlying “morality” of ‘socialism is “to each according to need. From each according to ability.” But the truth is this “morality” can only be achieved through regimentation of both what need is, and of what abilities are. Regimentation requires obedience to such, obedience requires strong enforcement. The self imposed responsibility of the state requires the equal amount of enforcement of obedience. Under the dictates of the Marxist “morality” expressed above total obedience is required. Total obedience is only acquired by utter despotism.
Such despotism is always attended by mythical “philosophies,” and grand pronouncements of “brotherhood” and “fraternity” and “equality” – but it is soon discovered that in this scheme, some are “more equal than others”. And those ‘more equal’ are inevitably the salesmen who sold the pitch.
\\][//
But, once again, you’re off-topic. I didn’t say that you were an extremist regarding your views of the Constitution. (Maybe you are, but I wouldn’t know enough of your views to make such a blanket statement). Rather, I stated that your views on the topic of firearms legislation were about as extreme in one direction as it’s probably possible to be. Your position seems to be that, contrary to Supreme Court rulings and the current desire of a clear majority of We the People, all legislation restricting or governing anything about guns is forbidden by the Second Amendment. Your view puts you at one extreme end of the spectrum, which makes you an extremist on that particular issue. As I clearly stated before, and I think more than once.
>”Your position seems to be that, contrary to Supreme Court rulings and the current desire of a clear majority of We the People, all legislation restricting or governing anything about guns is forbidden by the Second Amendment. Your view puts you at one extreme end of the spectrum,”~Hufferd
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” -2nd Amendment
“Supreme Court rulings” that infringe the 2nd Amendment are beyond the law.
“the current desire of a clear majority of We the People” that calls for the infringement of the 2nd Amendment are beyond the law.
It is not the law that is extreme Hufferd, it is those who do not grasp the law and call for it to be extinguished in their temporary hysteria of manipulated insecurity.
To seriously propose disarming the people in the face of such a draconian and tyrannical police state is absurd by all sane reasoning. That “We the People” are for the greatest part mind controlled bots of the Public Relations Regime, they are nothing but chumps in a circus of the surreal. And they are the ones that will suffer most if the guards of Liberty are disarmed.
You continue to ignore the lessons of history Hufferd, which is replete with the mass murder of peoples who were foolish enough to turn their weapons in to a despotic state.
It is becoming increasingly tiresome and irksome, to continue reading your apologia for this tyranny so clearly at hand. You are like a juvenile squirrel spinning in the dust. Your facade of reason is an empty husk. You deny the light and bring on the dusk. And the dark night that will follow will be a walk through the valley of the shadow of death.
\\][//
I find you absolutely UNBELIEVABLE Hufferd.
I tell you that you are not addressing the substance of the arguments here; then you reply “no it’s you that won’t address substance and will not answer my questions.”
It’s like arguing with a six year old who says, “I know you are but what am I?”
A prime example is shown in this exchange:
You began with this:
>“The people don’t get to have a government then? Shackles on the government under a representative system, however much abused, would mean that the people are shackled because they would be without a mechanism to govern their society.”
My answer to this was:
‘The people are clearly shackled and have no hand on the mechanism that governs this society. This is the point of this whole discussion here, that this system is ruled by diktat.’
Next you say:
> “But, we weren’t talking about “the people being shackled”, we were talking about the intent of the founders in framing the Constitution — so, there you go again, diverting away from the topic into a nonsequitor. A technique of avoidance, it seems.”
Which entirely avoids addressing my answer. You propose that “shackling the government” is equal to shackling the people. I pointed out that this would only be the case if the people actually had a voice in government and they clearly do not. So it is in fact the people who are shackled by a despotic government.
So YOUR response that; ” we weren’t talking about “the people being shackled” is in clear avoidance of my assertion that they are. And rather than address that with an argument of how the people actually do have a voice in government – which would be a clearly absurd argument, you go on to say that we were talking about:
> “we were talking about the intent of the founders in framing the Constitution”
Which is NOT what we were talking about in that specific exchange. In that exchange I point out tacitly that the intent of the framers was to shackle the government to specific authority granted them by that Constitution. And that that government has broken free of those shackles and rule with impunity. Thus, the tables are turned and the people are the ones shackled. __So by god Hufferd – we – us – You and I; were talking about people being shackled.
You are doing this on purpose Hufferd, confusing the issues in every way you possibly can by these stupid and transparent rhetorical tricks.
If you continue thus you will continue to get your pants yanked down to your ankles in public here.
Now you are clearly advocating the unlawful actions of this tyrannical state by; First of all claiming they have legitimate authority. And: Secondly that they have the legitimate authority to disarm the American people – compound with the fact that this is a vicious draconian police state.
Explain that to us Hufferd.
Your attempts so far rest on the spurious assertion that an election gives legitimacy to the regime put into office. This assertion discounts entirely the laws of the Constitution that this regime has clearly bypassed.
Also implied in this assertion is that the majority rules regardless of laws restricting their disparaging the minorities rights. Another indication that you have no respect for the rule of law.
If you want to address this post, do so specifically by addressing each point clearly and distinctly. If you just squall and ball in some generality scrabble dance, then the hell with you – you are outed as a provocateur at that point.
\\][//
But, we WERE talking about the intent of the framers and Congress in creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. My point on which was that that INTENT was to provide a blueprint for self-government, with a few limitations on the government they intentionally created, mostly in the Second Amendment. And your response was that the people have no power at all in the current government. Which is a bit of an exaggeration, especially if the people are and remain insitstant — as with ending the Vietnam War, for one example. But, still what you said is sadly arguable. But, still, it isn’t addressing my point, which was that the INTENT of the framers, in general, was not to shackle the country with edicts, which you maintain, but to create a blueprint for national self-government from that time forth. Why can’t you get your head around something so blatantly obvious? You ALWAYS shift your ground by a subtle change of topic — a tendency EL Once verified as your m.o. You don’t always have to figure out a way to disagree, you know. That’s why no one can civilly discuss anything with you unless they are your lackey.
Response to Hufferd post – FEBRUARY 8, 2013 – 9:39 PM
“My point on which was that that INTENT was to provide a blueprint for self-government, with a few limitations on the government they intentionally created”~Hufferd
You say, “a few limitations” – hogwash, The Constitution ties the hands of that government from acting with impunity in any manner whatsoever.
And you continue thus:
> “And your response was that the people have no power at all in the current government. Which is a bit of an exaggeration.”
It is hardly “exaggeration” when the ‘government” so blatantly and obviously acts with utter impunity in total disregard of the limitations so clearly stated in the Constitution.
Every single war since 1945 has been utterly unconstitutional, as none have been declared by Congress. Congressional abdication of the war powers, in conjunction with presidential usurpation of those powers, has clearly created a state of absolute Ultra Vires. The “government” has been totally illegitimate from that time forward.
Combined with the usurpation by the executive branch of diktat over the legislative and judicial branches via unconstitutional “executive privilege” and the concurrent unlawful “executive orders” – the country is clearly under executive dictatorship, and the whole congressional and judicial interplay is simply a masquerade, a charade, and theater of the absurd.
The people have no power, have been shackled and are under utter despotism. If you cannot see this at this late stage in the militarized police state, you are simply delusional.
. . . .
And one more thing, leaning on Senor’s characterizations and judgement are in no way a benefit to your vapid and weeping cause.
\\][//
Mr. Rogu, You confuse (me thinks deliberately) constitutionality with the people’s will, and if one doesn’t account for your desired block in governmental prowess to point to, you shift over to the other, and then back when it suits your argument. I tell you again, Jefferson’s famous phrase, “The earth belongs always to the living generation”, encapsulates pretty well the intent and thinking of the framers, that the body of citizens of the country in every generation going forward could manage their own affairs within the operational framework provided by the Constitutiion. Even the rationale you stated for Jefferson’s election, to abolish the Alien and Sedition Acts, fits this purpose. Because, the only purpose for free speech under the First Amendment was to permit people to freely discuss matters of interest in order to freely and wisely govern. What did the framers of the Constitutiion have in mind for the regulation or government of automobiles, computers, nuclear submarines, space programs, electric grids, railroads, bioengineering, the internet, lasers, or angioplasty? They didn’t even set any speed limits or discuss broadcasting, as far as I’m aware. Nor did they recognize acupuncture at that time. And, as for the popular will, especially since there have been nearly 1,700 firearms fatalities in the U.S. (doubtless more than in the other 96% of the world combined) since Sandy Hook, the popular will, bolstered by the Supreme Court ruling that reasonable gun regulation in Constitutional) may yet triumph on this issue, too.
“every generation going forward could manage their own affairs within the operational framework provided by the Constitutiion.”~Hufferd
That framework is the law Hufferd. The present generation is not within that framework and is acting beyond that law.
It was Jefferson – acting within that framework and within that law, the extinguished the acts of the former regime that had acted outside of that law. Both Jefferson and the majority were within that law at that time.
It is a distinctly different situation now when the government, with its brainwashed masses act entirely beyond that law.
You try my patience with this absurd scrabble Hufferd. This is the same situation the people of Germany were in in the 30s and 40s, a tyrannical regime and a brainwashed people.
You might recall the results of that combination. But I can see that this will all fly over your head like everything else has.
No no, don’t get up, stay on your knees. Wait for the knock on the door, don’t panic. Those storm troopers just want to help you, they are your friends…Lol
\\][//
You really don’t recognize statutes? I think you’re pulling our chain here.
“You really don’t recognize statutes? I think you’re pulling our chain here.”~Hufferd
I recognize LEGAL STATUTES, mr huff’n’puffer. You have a great talent to misconceive all that is written here.
My addressing the means of amending the Constitution, in that it cannot lawfully be done by statute is simply the fact of the matter.
Statutes drawn by usurpers are void upon delivery.
I have had enough of fully indoctrinated Huffer d’Puffer’s absolutely mind numbing psychobabble. It is like listening to the ululations coming from a padded cell, or from the synthetic TV talking-head. The panoptic maximum security state is a giant lunatic asylum. The Homeland of Lunacy: gahootansnog blitherkratin.
Presumitur pro libertate
Liberty is inviolable, inalienable, insuperable; bound-up in the laws of nature herself. Any presumption to author a law or statute that impinges upon such liberty is repugnant to humanity and nature herself.
. . . . .
It Has Happened Here in America: The Police State is Real
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Global Research, February 07, 2013
The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States.
9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state:
“In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.
Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.”
[Read the entire article here]:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/it-has-happened-here-in-america-the-police-state-is-real/5322223
\\][//
Hufferd,
You sir are a sham. You have shown yourself to be a troll who evades, distorts, and denies superior reasoning and logic. As a confirmed troll I will have nothing further to do with you unless it is to address distortions or falsehoods you may speak in the future. Like HR1 has said you are as illigitimate as the regime you are an apologist for.
Do you, at least, recognize statutes?
Confirmed troll? Confirmed by what? Do you think it’s normal to believe statutes aren’t laws?
“Confirmed troll? Confirmed by what? Do you think it’s normal to believe statutes aren’t laws?”~Hufferd
Huffy you are hilarious but this isn’t slap-stick. Who here has claimed statutes aren’t laws?
If you are claiming it is I, you are simply not paying attention here – or you are playing twining games, attempting to stir cognitive dissonance into the stew here with your little whirlpools of total bullshit,
If you by honest chance missed my comments on Statutory Law, they are on this very page, including these two just for instance:
“I recognize LEGAL STATUTES, mr huff’n’puffer. You have a great talent to misconceive all that is written here.” – FEBRUARY 9, 2013 – 3:40 PM
FEBRUARY 8, 2013 – 1:08 AM
“From Hammurabi to Bologna to the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus”:
[ a quick sketch of the history of law in a very general sweep.]
I have said that the Constitution cannot be altered by legislative statute, that there are clear laws to be followed to successfully Amend the Constitution.
I have also spoken to what is and is not legitimate authority according to constitutional law and to laws and statutes from much further back. I have illustrated many times here how the unconstitutional practices do not make it law. That any law drawn by an illegitimate usurper is null and void automatically, and it is not law. Acting under the false color of law is a crime. The pretense of legislating is an illegal act. The sitting regime cannot make the Constitution null and void, the attempt to do so makes the sitting regime null and void
By acting outside of the Constitution systematically as is the case, it is cause to demand that the sitting regime stand down and face trial for treason and usurpation of the legitimate seat of government.
\\][//
You said, and I quote, that “only the Constitution is law”. Look it up.
James Hufferd says on FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 8:56 AM:
>”You said, and I quote, that “only the Constitution is law”. Look it up.”
Who in the fuck are you talking to Hufferd?
Dammit man, if you cannot put your comments in context and make plain who you are talking to and what point you are trying to make, you might as well go grumble to your toilet.
\\][//
To secure’ man’s inalienable rights, ‘governments are instituted among men.’ And consequently they can have no lawful authority to violate the rights which they exist only to protect.” See Lewis Tappan, et al., Proceedings of Convention (New York, 1855), pp 10-11.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to self defense, it merely protects it.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
You have no lawful leg to stand on Huffer, and you are a traitor to Liberty and our inalienable rights. It is that simple. You are as illegitimate as the tyrannical despotism you apologize for.
[This message is brought to you sans the Anglo-Saxon that should rightfully attend it.]
\\][//
Sandy Hook: Law Enforcement Officials Now Admit Possibility of Multiple Shooters
NEWTOWN — New information has now been brought forth by Connecticut State Attorney Stephen Sedensky, suggesting that records pertaining to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been sealed to possibly hide the identity of witnesses from multiple shooter suspects and that they should not be unsealed anytime soon.
Officials fear the safety of witnesses.
Now we are getting somewhere, after nearly two months this new information is startling.
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/02/07/sandy-hook-law-enforcement-officials-now-admit-possibility-of-multiple-shooters/
\\][//
Please find a legitimate news source for the Stephen Sedensky “statement” – outside of the right-wing fringe echo chamber.
As far as I can tell it originated with “Stormfront” – a White Nationalist Community of Racists.
You set the bar so low HybridR – that even you cannot crawl under it. This is a sick lie.
“As far as I can tell it originated with “Stormfront” – a White Nationalist Community of Racists.”~Painter
As far as you can tell Painter?
Well why not go ahead and cite your sources before slinging the “guilt by association” slur?
I certainly didn’t find it at “Stormfront”. As you see I picked it up from Pakalert Press, which I have found about as reliable over all as most sites on the web.
\\][//
What would you bet on it being correct?
Stormfront was the earliest article I could find on this. Find an earlier one and I’ll paste a bunny in your book.
The Second Ammendment does not give you and other gun nuts “the right to be dangerous” to the general public.
The Second Ammendment does not give you and other gun nuts “the right to be dangerous” to the general public.”~Painter
I have never said that anyone has the right to be dangerous to the general public. In fact I can’t recall anybody claiming that from the defenders of the 2nd Amendment.
It is your own false assertion that being armed is dangerous to the general public. Many law abiding citizens go about their business armed. When licensed to carry this is legal activity, when not licensed it is considered criminal activity. Both practices ensue. The ratio of people who are armed and never have and incident to those who are involved in one, is astronomical. The great majority of gun violence is gang related and most of those guns aren’t under legal ownership. So the fact is, if you disarm the law abiding citizen you put him in harms way of those who are indeed “dangerous to the general public”.
The central and lawful fact is however that any citizen who hasn’t committed a felony and isn’t on parole have the inalienable right to bear arms without the permission of the state.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is the law, and the various practices of infringing that law by unlawful statues does not make those statutes lawful by mere practice. No matter what your opinion is that is the law as stated in the Constitution.
When I have explained so many times now that the Constitution cannot be amended by legislation and statute, this is exactly what I mean. The unlawful statutes are void, not the Constitution.
If people weren’t so ignorant perhaps we would have a more sane and less violent society. And your naivete is not innocence, it is a form of ignorance; a very dangerous form created by conditioning and programmed to fear and loathing. Thinking with your emotions rather than your critical facilities.
As far as the article on Sandy Hook, I am willing to wait for whatever develops as to this rumor, if it has legs it will run soon enough – if it has some truth to it. it may or may not come out as to what it really is. Just something to keep an eye on. One thing is certain, there were other suspects arrested that have never been acknowledged clearly as per identifying them.
\\][//
As this thread is getting darker and darker by the pro gun lobby, i think it about time we reverse this very unfortunate trend.
Here is a segment from my post on 3. February above, quoting the most pertinent part relevant to what is discussed. Please read it very carefully:
“…….
Any person – civilian or military – who praises, defends and glorifies war in writing or in speech, instead of evoking aversion to this deed of Darkness and enlightening his fellow human beings on the degradation and brutishness of war, is himself placing a heavy burden of responsibility on his shoulders and must, having ended his earthly life, render a detailed account to God of the motivations for his actions.
Even though human beings wage war among themselves, and even though God does not hear their prayers for victory, He never loses sight of them, but seeks either directly or through the disincarnated Youngest to awaken remorse among the leaders, just as He tries in many ways to instil in them an awareness of the injustice and the abuse of power of which they are guilty, so as to bring about a pact of peace before one of the parties succumbs to the superior force; but in the vast majority of cases also these attempts are rejected by human beings.
…….”
Addendum to follow in next post.
Cheers
Another message from the transcendental world, dealing with this topic, is continued here:
“…….
Take not the lives of others!
For do you this, then will you for long times stay your progress towards the Light and the Home; indeed, then must you often remain at the same place through hundreds of earthly existences, for you cannot advance until you have saved from sudden death as many human beings as you have slain or have caused to be sent to their deaths.
Yes, hear me all! Give ear and heed my words! For I tell you that nothing is more evil than to destroy life; nothing stays your progress as do the devastating and degrading wars waged amongst you; no greater abomination is there than that of nation rising against nation, of brother slaying brother. For be mindful that you have all the same Father, mindful that He gives to all the same infinitude of love. But when you wage war and kill one another, then does He turn from you, then does He grieve for you.
This I tell you that in your wars you implore not our Father for assistance, for He hears you not. And neither pray that He bless you or your arms that you may overcome your enemies, for never will He give you His blessing that you may the better plunder, persecute and kill.
Yes, truly: do you wage war upon one another then thank Him not for your victories nor reproach Him for your defeats(4) For our Father is not a god of wrath and vengeance. Neither is He fickle, saying to some: “Thou shalt not kill!”, and to others: “Go forth and kill!”. His commandments concern all, for to Him are you all equal. And through me He calls out to you: “Take heed and beware that you kill not, beware of hatred and of envy, of strife, of war and of enmity; be mindful of all the evil about and amongst you!”
Yes, hear me, mankind! Inscribe in your hearts my words that you may remember them ever! Neither neglect to pray our Heavenly Father enlighten you that you may understand to the full the guilt they bear who awaken strife and enmity among you; the blame they must bear who send thousands upon thousands of your brothers into battle, to suffering and death!
Yes, hear me, for I tell you: live in peace and forbearance with one another, befriend one another and extend to one another the hand of brotherly accord so that everlasting peace may prevail over all the Earth! For if all act upon these, my words, then will our Father be with you, then will His Thought guide you, His hand support you, His strength and His blessing be with you in all your works.
…….”
A brief description to the most important Law that mankind is subjected to, follows in the next post.
Cheers
I was going to make this quote to consist of only the last part, but have decided to expand it a bit!
This is a question asked by human beings and answered by the transcendental world:
“…….
Is reincarnation really necessary? And how is the Law of Retribution applied?
The purpose of reincarnation is to allow human spirits to mature through a gradual and many-sided process to the point that they are able to reject the influence of Darkness in all circumstances of life.
When human spirits undergo their first earthly lives, their spiritual egos—represented by thought and will—are but comparable to the faintest spark of the Light. Their earliest lives on Earth are then little more than a form of passive existence—of becoming accustomed to the human condition. After having undergone some initial incarnations, the spiritual ego begins to react to the guidance of the conscience—the guardian spirit. But it should be obvious that those individuals who stand at a very low spiritual level possess not as sensitive a “conscience” as do those more spiritually advanced. And since the new and the very young spirits predominate in the lower human races, the “spiritual laws” whereby a “savage”, for example, is judged, cannot be equally applied to a member of a civilized society. Savages, embodying very young spirits, are not yet able to respect human life or property. They cannot be judged alike, spiritually, as those humans who, through spiritual and worldly upbringing, have been taught to respect such values but yet, possessing this greater inner depth, still kill and rob. Not until the ego learns to distinguish between “mine” and “thine” and comes to understand the value of human life is there accountability for those sinful actions of whose consequences the ego is then spiritually aware. For the slightest violation of conscience must result in penalty—the necessity to atone. When the ego is aware that a certain act must by nature bring penalty, then that individual of free will breaks the law in committing that act, and by abuse of that freedom becomes subject to the Law of Retribution and cannot evade the consequences. Only full repentance through prayer can bring the forgiveness of God, and only appeals to wronged fellow humans can bring the possibility of their forgiveness and thereby remove the need for severe repercussions.
Human sin can be divided into two chief categories:
…….
…….
There is one provision under the Law of Retribution none can avoid except the youngest of human spirits, not yet able to respond to their conscience. Applying to the spiritual ego of humans and the Youngest and Eldest alike, this provision requires that all who commit acts of murder or in some other way cause loss of life of fellow beings, must, in a subsequent incarnation, save from sudden death the same number of lives taken. (Toward the Light, page 114: 6.) (Quoted above).
However, this provision can be applied in different ways. Those judged and penalized under earthly law have nothing more for which to atone. But since God’s law requires that those who kill must in later incarnations save lives, anyone already punished under earthly law will comply with this provision through an act of love, giving them the protection of God so that they emerge unharmed from the perilous task. Not so for those who have evaded earthly justice. They are protected neither by the guardian spirit nor by God during attempts to save other lives. They never escape some form of harm, such as death, maiming, prolonged illness, burns, or the like. In other words, they must atone for past crimes with their own lives or with bodily suffering. Thus God’s Law of Retribution can in certain cases require a life for a life; however, the earthly courts of law have not a similar right.
Those who as earthly rulers, military commanders, or leaders of the people are indirectly responsible for the loss of great numbers of lives during wars and uprisings or through death penalties, can expiate their guilt in subsequent incarnations by saving a large number of people from impending catastrophe, for example through action to avert man-made or natural disasters, as inventors making safe otherwise dangerous occupations, or as scientists who find ways to prevent or control the diseases that are such a scourge to mankind in so many ways. God Himself ensures through this provision the correct balance between the human lives lost and those lives that in compensation are to be saved from premature or painful death.
The last two means of atonement apply only to the Youngest and partly to the Eldest, since human spirits clearly possess not sufficient spiritual stability to be inventors or scientists in life on Earth.
…….”
It is indeed the wise and the enlightened who are the Ones that speak out against all form for armaments used for the purpose of killing fellow human beings, so all praise to Painter and Hubberd.
Cheers
I object to this thousand word interruption of magical mystical bullshit from Tamborina.
The defense of the rights of Liberty are hardly “dark dark evil”. And defending the 2nd Amendment is not a promotion of war. It is in fact part and parcel to the demand to remove those warmongers that rule this nation unconstitutionally from office.
Tamborine manikin has now disrupted the ongoing conversation with a totally irrelevant load of metaphysical crap having no bearing on the issues at hand.
\\][//
Mr Ruff,
We now face a triumvirate of Looneytoon characters straight out of a theater of the absurd!
Their intent is to make a madhouse of this thread. This latest twirlybird mystical jabbersplatter from Tamboring is just hyperflatulation to envelope and suffocate any sanity left here. It is juvenile burlesque.
What to do when we find our opponents are indeed stark raving mad???
\\][//
I wonder, if you were debating, for instance, on TV, if you would dodge all the questions and go right to your obscene insults?
I agree HR. I wonder loudly that we have some ops in our midst. I would suggest that you do the thread a favor and put hufferd on some skinnerian behaviorism as he is getting a kernal of corn from every peck he makes. Trust me, it will work wonders.
If so, there are apparently something over 200 million LTCs, as you characterize them, in this country. Get used to it!
The number of Lieutenant Colonels is far less than this absurd estimate of 200 million. There aren’t even that many military in this country. And besides, one does not fry an egg in an oven, one uses a pan atop a stove. Or to make the point more clear; the copper dime and quarter is clearly counterfeit, so the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, especially if that old serpent is around enticing young ladies.
Again I am reminded of villain in ‘The Three Little Pigs’.
These are different pigs than those who went to the market; there were five of those.
Somewhere along the way there has been a capital offence.
So it is obvious we must arrange for a capital defense…or if speaking to the Brits “defence”, or if sitting on a fence a capooty for the tube-shooty.
Count them, “fifteen” Round the Table…white, and dressed to kill.
Ja?
\\][//
You wildly misinterpreted. The LTCs referred to here were Dog Lover’s “looney-tune characters” who dared disagree with the hard-core gun fanatics in this conversation. The “more than 200 million” are not military personnel at all, but regular Americans (or American regulars, if you will) who, according to a bevy of polls (unheaded at your peril — ask Hannity, Morris, and Rove) oppose you guy on this. These “more than 200 million” are the vast majority of “We the people” on this issue — and just may get there way, in full or in part by seriously threatening to vote bums out — which usually eventually works! (I know, I know, that’s preposterous, yada yada yada yada. I’m ready for it, so bring it.)
So it is then your opinion Mr Hufferd, that you can vote down the Constitution?
This seems to be your message as you indicate that it is the 2nd Amendment and the “gun nuts” that you will “vote out”.
And you assume it is only at MY peril if said is done; and an attempt to disarm the people should take place? You misjudge the character and determination of the Patriots to the Constitution.
I didn’t “misinterpret” anything at all Huffer – you used nonsensical initials that convey zero.
Like most of your commentary conveys zero. You look to a bleak future with unwarranted confidence. Your hope to bring about de jur democracy here in repugnance to the supreme law of the land will only solidify the tyranny at hand. In that sir, you are a fool.
\\][//
No. My opinion is the Supreme Court’s and that over the overwhelming majority of citizens — that sensible gun laws don’t infringe or endanger the Second Amendment, which nearly everyone supports, also. There are legitimate necessary limits to all the rights — Free speach, crowded theatre, etc.
“No. My opinion is the Supreme Court’s and that over the overwhelming majority of citizens — that sensible gun laws don’t infringe or endanger the Second Amendment”~Hufferd
Regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court, it infringes on the 2nd Amendment.
It is a matter of what is Necessary, as to what is Legitimate in limiting rights.
As per the 1st Amendment; It is clear cut in the argument against “Free speech” in the crowded theater scenario. It is also restricted as far as lying for gain, as in fraud, etc.
But the arguments against the 2nd Amendment are fraudulent in that the idea that gun violence will be solved by such measures. It is pure PR and misrepresentation of the facts to make that argument. But the prime reasoning is not addressed at all, and that is that the Amendment clearly reads, “Shall not be Infringed”, the proximate reason for this is as a safeguard from tyranny.
Now you cite “Supreme Court” rulings that infringe the 2nd Amendment, without recognition that this court is an intimate member of the Racketeer syndicate that has usurped the seats of legitimate authority and act beyond the law. And again, this is the same false reasoning that the common German under the Hitler regime used, “the authorities say it is legal, therefore it must be.” — a deathly naive presumption.
Again we come to the bottom line here; gun control is unlawful in the US. And rule by majority opinion is safeguarded against by the Constitution, and more importantly by the under-girding principles of Liberty and our INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
Your rebuff to the Constitution and the principles of Liberty will not pass without notice.
I say you are clearly a Tory sir.
\\][//
But you see, you don’t get to determine that. Sorry.
And Hufferd, you are still floating blurbs here without any reference to what you presume to answer with them, such as the following at 8:08 PM, today 2/11/13:
“But you see, you don’t get to determine that. Sorry.”
Just WHAT is it I do not get to determine Huffer?
\\][//
That’s an invalid and bogus criticism. The responses always come with the previous comment they answered.
2/11/2013 – 9:36 PM Hufferd says:
>”That’s an invalid and bogus criticism. The responses always come with the previous comment they answered.”
. . . . .
But Huffer does not say WHAT is “an invalid and bogus criticism,” despite the fact that it has been pointed out to him over and again that these comments do not appear in order of the Reply button, that this thread is putting all commentary in chronological order and not in threaded sequence as per Replies to particular posts. And he has done it AGAIN, in this very reply, that can only be determined indirectly as to what he is replying to.
What is the hell does it take to get through to this dimwit? It is indeed a valid criticism, as he has again confused the forum as to what the hell he is answering. Not only is his reasoning absurd, and his citations skewed by extraconstitutional commentary, but he cannot see how the commentary actually gets displayed on the page…and he’s looking right at it.
WTF anyway???
\\][//
I am disappointed at these consistent arguments that plead that we narrow the scope of the search for truth. These arguments invariably attempt to truncate commentary that reaches for the underlying context of the topics at hand must stand to in reasonable fashion.
In my view all commentary should have the end result of exposing lies and errors by revealing the truth and facts. The heading to this particular thread is specifically that of the interest generated by the Sandy Hook event. Well, what is that “interest” based on?
Why are we interested? Are we not interested because we seek the truth of what happened and why?
Although we are initially left devoid of enough information to say with certainty what went down at the Sandy Hook school, we can reasonably postulate why by analysis of the reactions and acts of the authorities to the event. Whether staged or not, the event is being used in the agenda to disarm the US population.
And so the commentary here puts such postulates for consideration to the readers in general as well as those who will respond here. This argument ensues in an attempt of some to restrain deeper investigation being countered by the commentary of others who want to expand a deeper investigation – of not merely WHAT has happened but WHY, and where this might invariably lead.
As such this conversation has grown increasingly complex. Why? To understand the truth of our present circumstance. I cannot grasp the motives of those who would object to looking for such truth. I would hazard the guess that it is simply too much work to think this all through; lazy minds seeking easy answers. In a world of such universal deceit, such lazy minds become the marks of slick rhetoric, and are conned into accepting half truths as sufficient.
Thus those who would fool us see that it is merely a matter of wearing down, of waging the strategy of circular argumentation to exhaust the patience and interest of the readers.
The discovery of truth takes great patience, and a determined interest to succeed.
If my fortitude in this tires you, I have to say; I cannot find an adequate nor rational reason to make apologies for that.
For those who see the issue as confined to what happened in Newtown, they have had no less opportunity than I to post commentary to this thread. I cannot be rightly blamed for their failure to produce what they see would be the proper discussion here.
\\][//
You think leaving off the last letter of my name makes you look smart, Rogu?
Dear Mr. Hufferd and Mr. Rogue,
Because the PTB (or software gremlins) appear to be messing heavily with the comments in this thread, I ~strongly~ encourage both of you to explicitly call out to whom you are addressing your comments and the date/time stamp of what you are addressing. You cannot rely on the “Reply” link. Otherwise, ain’t no lurker reader going to be able to tell what is going on.
Also, Mr. Rogue, when you cough up two or three hairballs to a single one from Mr. Hufferd, it indicates many things, like quite possibly your thoughts on a matter were not complete and therefore could easily be postponed until they are complete. Work is interfering with Mr. McKee’s ability to promptly approve comments anyway, so you might as well delay posting, think more, and improve your composition of one response. It also looks very unfair when Mr. Hufferd scurries off to reply to one of your comments and then at or about the time his comment is approved by Mr. McKee, two more comments from you (that did not wait for Mr. Hufferd’s response) suddenly appear. Because a complaint I’ve had before and applies now, three-to-one comment-ratios from you rapidly starts to look like you are flooding the forum and does nothing to diminish the impression others have of you bullying and dominating this forum. Therefore, once you’ve posted something to someone, shut up (to that person) and wait for the reply.
Another point, Mr. Rogue, that has been brought up before but fits in with the encouragement to improve the quality of your postings is for you to insert more affordances such as “+++ begin” and “+++ end” (if you can’t figure out <blockquote> and </blockquote> which I now have great success with on COTO) to clearly mark where extended quotations start and end, which in turn makes it easier to figure out where your own wise words have been added. The well-read genius that you are should know that your lame usage of double-quotation marks does not cut it to cover extracts that are multiple paragraphs long and might themselves contain double-quotation marks.
//
regarding the thread and pointed out in a previous comment by Senor it indeed works better when the comments are received via email. The thread appears to be at least in the order that they were posted. Much easier to follow. Thanks for that Senor.
Hi Alistair,
The thread went wanky when Mr McKee removed a video. It caused some bizarre reaction in the Reply function. I can’t be certain, but I doubt that any outside party is messing with the thread, particularly as I was aware of the misfunction right away – and that was the first time I posted after that video was removed.
Commenting from the primary Comment block still sends the comment up the thread to a position before that video’s space. At least I assume it does, the last time I used that box in error was a few days ago.
I have a peculiar problem with my email address being disconnected with my WordPress gravitar, do to having my previous email address stolen by some hacker thieves that attempted to bilk my address book contacts out of money…pretending they were me and I had been mugged in Spain…Lol…unbelievable to anyone I know personally…
At any rate, I can’t get the email alerts since that time.
I’d reckon, when Mr McKee posts a new story the threading of comments will go back to normal. All one would have to do is post something to a previous thread and see how the main comment box goes.
And as far as Ms Senor Poppins concern over my style of communication…
Hohohohehehehahaha, and all that.
\\]i[//
I suppose it would surprise no one here that I consider myself a “Patriot; defining that term to mean that I have bound my personal principles with the principles of Liberty as set forth in that document.
That being said, I do dispute the term, “Jeffersonian Democracy” as misframing the principles that were expressed in the historical record by the man himself. Democracy as a form of government is inherently dangerous to individual Liberty for the reasons I have given throughout the commentary I have made on this thread. The primary danger, or course being simple “majority rule” sans the safeguards offered by the Republican form of government.
Some may suggest that “a constitutional democracy” is an apt “definition” of the form of government, a Republic, however the term “democracy” itself carries the historical baggage of majority rule, and those who are not sophisticated in the political and social sciences are easily persuaded that simple majority rule should be the key factor in governance. And it is this idea that has been so destructive of the Republic and the principles of Liberty it was founded upon.
These idea’s did not propagate by happenstance by any stretch of the imagination. This ideology was promoted by the agenda of the International Banking Cabal, through the auspices of Mr House who was the keeper of the puppet president, Woodrow Wilson, and propagated by “the Father of Spin” himself, Edward Bernays, as well as Walter Lippmann during the PR campaign of “Making the world safe for Democracy” that manipulated the population into supporting entrance into the First World War.
This is just a short outline of the reasons that I find “Democracy” repugnant to the principles of Liberty that I hold dear.
If I am to be accused of “extremism” for holding this jealousy for my personal freedoms, I can only defend in that it is anti-freedom extremists who could make such a charge; Such extremism as that is also known as Despotism.
\\][//
Rogu, Jeffersonian Democracy is a term older than your great, great, great grandfather. They always could have been mistaken back then, though. To overturn that characterization would be to impose a revisionist history. Of course, those aren’t always wrong, either.
FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 10:26 AM – Hufferd says:
>”Jeffersonian Democracy is a term older than your great, great, great grandfather. They always could have been mistaken back then, though.”
. . . . . .
As the term “Jeffersonian Democracy” itself in no manner whatsoever alters the republican form of government established constitutionally, I would take no particular offence to it.
It is however the ensuing history beyond that, and reaching the 20th century with the machinations controlling the Wilson regime; with the new “scientific” form of Propaganda developed by those such as Bernays and Lippmann, that causes the harm that has led to the destruction of the republic.
The central thesis of Bernaysian PR is the ‘manufacture of Consent’. By this ploy, a pure democracy, unbound by the restrictions on the majority in the republic established by the Constitution; the people become the tool of the elite. The people come to believe that the rule of the majority is lawful and proper and call a republic a “democracy” in ignorance.
In this situation the term “democracy” is no longer some innocent colloquial phrase, but a critical error of thinking that has in fact led to the despotic rule of the elites who designed this facade.
The majority of people simply do not understand what freedom promises, entails, and especially requires. They do not know the history of this country, or their own history–and knowing neither they cannot read and apply the Constitution intelligently.
And one historical note on this that holds bearing:
The Jeffersonian party was officially the “Republican Party”
– (although historians later called it the Democratic-Republican Party.
~Noble E. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian party to 1801: a study of the formation of a party organization (1952)
\\][//
NOW I ask you Hufferd,
SO-WHAT?
Over 500 posts later, you are still chattering and dancing around the edges of the central points, which you avoid by all of this chit-chat about trivial issues.
Those central points are:
You still advocate the disarming of the People in face of Tyrannical Oppression by an Illegitimate “government”.
You still insist that Majority Rule can remove the right of the People to keep and bear arms, despite the fact that such rights are the Law of the Land.
You cite ‘Practices’ as precedent, even though illegal practice cannot and never has created legitimate law.
You argue that reasonably proven facts are not so simply because of your own personal opinion. And you make such arguments to the point of glaring absurdity, and are offended when it is pointed out that your arguments are preposterous. By such; you appear and prove yourself as disingenuous and agenda driven, rather than standing to reason.
\\][//
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.”
~Thomas Jefferson
All who pray for Peace and Good-Will amongst Mankind will have their hopes and dreams destroyed by the ignorance of Naivete.
\\][//
Rogu, if nobody answered any of your posts, you would still continue indefinitely responding and talking to yourself.
Hufferd,
If you assert that your post of: FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 1:08 PM:
Is an adequate response to my post of: FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 1:01 PM:
Then you are again dodging and attempting to confuse by offering spurious charges, rather than making an answer.
Your agenda is as obvious as it is preposterous and unlawful.
\\][//
Hufferd,
Your pleas are predicated on a hope of short memories and are dedicated to those you hope may not have read the entire scope of the dialog upon this page.
So again:
Over 500 posts later, you are still chattering and dancing around the edges of the central points, which you avoid by all of this chit-chat about trivial issues.
Those central points are:
You still advocate the disarming of the People in face of Tyrannical Oppression by an Illegitimate “government”.
You still insist that Majority Rule can remove the right of the People to keep and bear arms, despite the fact that such rights are the Law of the Land.
You cite ‘Practices’ as precedent, even though illegal practice cannot and never has created legitimate law.
You argue that reasonably proven facts are not so simply because of your own personal opinion. And you make such arguments to the point of glaring absurdity, and are offended when it is pointed out that your arguments are preposterous.
\\][//
Why is the content here addressing me when it’s hibridrogue1 to hibridrogue1 again? In answer, the only thing I’ve ever urged on this conversation is for at least some smidgin of evidence to back up your big, bold allegaton of a Sandly Hook false flag. A few emails back, after all this time, you actually DID finally come forth with a bit of evidence, and I congratulated you and simply suggested that you seek impartially to verify it as true or bogus. All routine for an investigation. Have you begun to try to do that? So, what are you now alleging as my agenda, in requesting reasonable back-up for your main allegation? Shouldn’t you be as careful and thorough before throwing around charges as possible? And if not, why not?
Hufferd,
If you insist to continue here, giving full testimony that you are a complete idiot, in this forum open to the eyes of the whole world – please continue. I will oblige in assisting you to do so. I think it valuable that your preposterous assertions are seen for what they are; utter lunacy.
You are trapped in that twilight world where your shadows dance with themselves…
FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 5:14 PM – Hufferd finds himself cornered again.
Now he is pretending that we weren’t addressing “majority rule” – the distinction between a democracy and a republic, and his ignorance of the principles of Liberty. So, now he plays the, “this thread is about Sandy Hook” card again, when he hasn’t mentioned the event for days, but has been playing his bullshit democratic socialist horn.
And he actually thinks that this dodge and weave isn’t clear to any who have kept up with this thread….amazing.
Your whole trip here Huffer is to stand in your pile of bullshit and do the Twist. You’re a clown putting on a one-jerk-circus here Mr Huff’n’Puff.
\\][//
Rogue, Anybody can call people playground names. And, I know from ample experience, that basically anyone but you can understand my sufficiently clear messages. So, I just consider the source of all your garbage.
I truly think we should get rid of “politics” all together.
The Transcendental world seems to agree totally with this proposition:
Here’s another question from human beings, and the answer to it:
“…….
How should one view the political principles of Liberalism versus those of Socialism?
Humans themselves must resolve political strife. However, in this as in all other matters the individual will always be able to obtain the necessary guidance through the guardian spirit, the conscience. But it can be said with certainty from the transcendental world that all political disputes are of the evil. The governing and legislative authorities of the nations and the various communities have (Speech of Christ, Toward the Light, pages 124-26: 2) received a guideline that clearly indicates the direction of God’s wishes. If Christ’s discourse was in its entirety to become, in spirit and in truth, the guide for all life on Earth, it would soon transpire that all political factions and the incessant tugs-of-war among the various party leaders were quite needless and caused nothing but harm. They are harmful because they can in no way create calm and peaceful working conditions for those with whom the responsibility lays.
…….”
Cheers
And, Rogu, your perception does not alter reality. I don’t think you are a democrat, though. You simply do not believe in “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” I don’t know, though, WHO, if not the people, should govern — and I doubt you know, either.
One FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 1:08 PM – Hufferd asserts this bald faced lie:
> “You simply do not believe in “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
. . . . . . .
I have stated herein on no uncertain terms, that the sovereignty belongs to The People.
I have pointed out that this means the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, and not simply the majority of them, and that certain rights are inviolable, irrevocable, and inalienable; and that the majority is bound by the principles of Liberty not to infringe upon these rights.
On this very page, time and again I have made this argument. To claim that I have not is a lie – to make the charge above is false witness because you know otherwise than what you just asserted.
Your’s Hufferd, are the acts and words of a scoundrel, a disingenuous thief of the truth.
\\][//
Rogu, So, what happens if “the whole people” don’t all think alike and you don’t gunanimity on a decision (which will, in fact, be the case 100% of the time)? Nothing? No decision and the majority is stymied by the tyranny of the minority? You can’t be serious in rejecting majority rule!
On FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 3:13 PM – Hufferd asks:
> “Rogu, So, what happens if “the whole people” don’t all think alike and you don’t gunanimity on a decision (which will, in fact, be the case 100% of the time)? Nothing? No decision and the majority is stymied by the tyranny of the minority? You can’t be serious in rejecting majority rule!”~Huff’n’Puff Man
. . . . . .
Huffer, The great weight of the solid bone of your head must cause tremendous pain to your neck and shoulders.
This question is nonsensical in a republic. It is based on the assumption that decision is based on majority opinion alone. All decisions are based on LAW in a republic Huffer, not on the fickle fiat of the majority. Every law and statute in this republic MUST comport with the Constitution or it is null and void.
Merely posing the question above Hufferd, proves how dreadfully ignorant you are of the laws and history of this nation.
It also proves that you are utterly unaware of the real Tyranny at hand, that of a totally illegitimate Criminal Cabal ruling by diktat and imposing a draconian police state.
\\][//
For the benefit of the readers, let me expand just a bit on the answer given the quesiton of FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 6:55 PM from Hufferd and cited therein:
The presumed dilemma that Hufferd puts to the forum is only applicable to the pure democracy that he ludicrously believes this republic to be.
Yes, in a pure democracy the majority would rule, and any disputes made by the minority would be seen as an attempt to hamstring the government from putting into action the majority decisions.
That dilemma is bypassed in a republic where the minority has the rights of Liberty, one of which is the right to dispute and overcome majority decisions when those decisions infringe upon the rights of Liberty.
Thus the ‘dilemma’ proposed by Hufferd is merely the product of his confused and fevered thinking. As much as he wishes that this nation and it’s Constitution codifies democracy and majority rule, the fact is that the Constitution put in place a republican form of government that protects the rights of Liberty, and thus Justice for all.
That this is not what is in place today is not due to law, it is due to systemic criminal actions putting illegitimate laws and practicing illegal enforcement of them. It is a criminal state. The Constitution and the republic it founded has been cast aside by the criminal cabal, and tyranny has been put in its place.
The real Dilemma is the Enchantment of the deluded mass of the People. Hufferd being a prime example of that state of delusion.
\\][//
What a dunder! I was saying in principal, majority rule (democracy) is the fairest and most-effective system, NOT that we our system works perfectly as such or even close (as everyone knows). And, OF COURSE enactments have to pass constitutional muster (AS EVERYONE KNOWS). The rights of all minorities must be upheld (AS EVERYONE KNOWS). But that doesn’t mean that the minority on any issue, if their civil rights are respected, rule. Again, my question: if the people don’t have the right to majority rule, then who do you want to rule, Rogue?
As to; FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 10:43 PM – Hufferd:
This is Déjà vu all over again Huffer…
You bleat:
>”But that doesn’t mean that the minority on any issue, if their civil rights are respected, rule.”
That you can pretend that our civil rights are “respected” – not just the minorities, but the majorities as well, is more of your preposterous lunacy.
Huff’n’Puff, you came on there with a flat-line-brainwave, and we haven’t seen a positive blip yet. The US is a despotic police state. There are NO RIGHTS RESPECTED here.
I refuse to read off the litany of draconian laws that have been enacted, especially those post 9/11 – they are all too glaringly present in our daily lives – that is if we are in the least bit cognizant: Which Huffer has proven he is far from.
\\][//
I hear you — thunder, thunder, rattle, rattle, boom, boom, boom!
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
\\][//
Hmmmm…. hybridrogue1 answering hybridrogue1 again… You’re losting it!
Any social theory that does not take into account Social Engineering, will be fatally flawed.
Dismissing the fact that the manufacture of consent is a proven phenomena of modern systems founded in public relations regimes leads invariably to preposterous analysis.
This idea that any sort of democratic process can work. when that process is truncated at the very core, is based on such preposterous analysis. It takes a determined insistence on delusional pretense to remain so gullible; and this determination is the product of the conditioning and programming of the postmodern technocratic states.
For those who haven’t studied and grasped the work of Bernays, and Lippmann and their school of progressive PR, nor the effects of watching television, can have no immunity to such scientifically calibrated persuasion.
This thread is testament of the futility of attempting to break through such programming by simply making reasonable arguments. Such reason is dismissed by the emotions of the programmed automatons that make up the vast majority of modern societies.
I would like to thank my prime opponent here for making such a perfect example of the ‘Programmed Automaton’ that I speak of. And I want to applaud such readers who are able to take away the positive lessons from this exchange. There is some growing portion of humanity that is awakening, and I hope this thread has contributed some little bit to that.
W. Whitten – \\][//
A remorseless skepticism of “values” results in dissolving all as mere epiphenomena. As such, Quality looses out to Efficiency. This is the core danger of Technocracy.
[See: Ellul, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY]
\\][//
Mr. Whitten, It would seem from this superficially reasonable statement, coupled with your vulgarly-maintained exteme intansigence for over two weeks in simply divulging or citing any credible evidence that your blatant charge of a false-flag operation, rather than understandable confusion and misreporting in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, that you regard any request for taking responsibility of your own statements an outrage. That attitude on the part of everything-is-automatically-a-conspiracy theorists without requiring any proof whatsoever is why quote a few Americans, amounting to millions of people, won’t listen to our by contrast very well-established claims about 9/11. You may be right about Sandy Hook. But, raising the accusation, it’s your responsibility to reasonably support it with facts leading intelligent people to accept your conclusion. If you can’t do that, you’re just making noise and alienating lots of people.
James,
While I haven’t commented on your disagreement with Hybridrogue over Sandy Hook, I will say this: the misreporting you refer to is much more problematic that you suggest. It is absolutely not normal for MANY reports, coming unnamed “law enforcement” sources, are flat wrong. We’re not talking about normal confusion here. This wasn’t based on comments from a crowd that didn’t know what was happening, these false reports were coming from the authorities.
While it may not be possible to say without a shred of doubt that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation, I believe it is also a mistake to brush off the anomalies we’ve seen. At the minimum, we should all acknowledge that there are troubling questions and anomalies that require answers from police and from the media. We don’t have to have all the proof to be suspicious and to want to investigate further, as has happened in a number of thoughtful essays.
Craig, No, you don’t have to have all the pieces to be suspicious — which is healty — to jump from some contradictions and aparent misreporting, especially initially, by feverishly-competing news organizations and a couple of pieces from very dubious sources (maybe just rumors?), like the Libor connection of 2 atrocity suspects’ fathers and the day-before recording of one’s death, to FALSE FLAG!!!!!! and few if any deaths (followed by days and days of funerals), etc., strikes most people as fanatical. I know. I’ve heard from some. And when I simply requested that my interlocutor cite some evidence, ANY evidence for his charges over and over and over, in order to try to be responsible, my repeated requests were only met with fake incomprehension, derision, and denunciations.
What are the tell tale signs of a false flag operation? Well in the case of 9/11:
1. We have a massive false story fronted by the media and government.
2. We have complete control of the crime scene by the “authorities” with no independent investigation allowed.
3. We have destruction of evidence on a massive scale and complete control of the evidence that was not destroyed.
4. We have numerous “anomolies” where what the authorities say does not match up with the evidence.
5. We have evidence that directly refutes the official story that has emerged over the years following the event.
So with Sandy Hook how many of these signs are already present?
Ruff, NOW you are listing some anomalies that raise suspicions and invite further investigation as to sources, accuracy, and meaning, which Mr. Rogue assiduously avoided bringing forth for days into weeks. NOW we might have the BEGINNINGS of something becoming a wee bit more plausible. Have you begun further investigations as yet? Just listing won’t accomplish anything positive.
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 14, 2013 – 7:29 PM says:
> “Ruff, NOW you are listing some anomalies that raise suspicions and invite further investigation as to sources, accuracy, and meaning, which Mr. Rogue assiduously avoided bringing forth for days into weeks.”
. . . . .
Bullshit Huffer, both Ruff and I have been making those same points “for days into weeks.”
And we have brought such forth with more specificity and with reasoned hypotheticals.
YOU haven’t been paying attention, but have rather been hand-waving and spewing anal hurlant for “days into weeks”
\\][//
A reminder Hufferd, this is your first post addressed specifically to me. You did not ask about anything I had said pertaining to Sandy Hook, you said this:
James Hufferd – JANUARY 25, 2013 – 10:49 PM
“According to Jefferson, “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” Which means that the government is and does whatever the bulk of the people at the time want it to…”
YOU were the one that set the tone and topic for the discussion that you now complain didn’t address the Sandy Hook event. Your porcine ululations to the contrary; I have addressed that in other commentary on both of the threads on this blog – putting as much or more as anyone else here to that topic.
You chose me out in particular here Hufferd, because of your arrogant egoistic belief that as an “academic” and a “scholar” and ‘Doktar of Wisdom’ {Lol} that you could best me in debate by putting to work your disingenuous PR skills. But rather and instead, you proved your utter ignorance in constitutional law and the principles of Liberty that law is founded on.
And now it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that you intend to continue with your fools game with me. You have proven yourself a big fat ZERO Huffer. And if you continue to reiterate that, you are indeed a sublime fool.
\\][//
Oh, no. You lie. And will again.
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 9:07 AM
“Oh, no. You lie. And will again.”
. . . . .
Hufferd, I DEMAND an explanation for this. I will not be called a liar without your attempt at making a proof.
You SEEM to refer to my assertion that you began the constitutional argument with your very first post directed to me misinterpreting Jefferson.
Do you deny that was your first comment to me?
\\][//
GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG
This is what it means Hufferd…And this is why your bullshit oink about “democracy”; whether it is lawful and correct or not – you say the majority must rule. You judge everything by putting a finger in the air to see which way the wind blows as per opinion. You spend more time fretting over consensus than what is Truth.
The weight of this attitude is what brings out comments such as these from you:
FEBRUARY 14, 2013 – 2:35 PM
> “If you can’t do that, you’re just making noise and alienating lots of people.”
FEBRUARY 14, 2013 – 8:02 PM
>”..about that really aggravates a whole lot of people and gives us such a black eye.”
. . . . . . . .
The Truth is not a matter of majority opinion Hufferd, the Truth is so regardless of any opinions. If everyone in the whole world believed in a lie and only one person stood up for truth, that person would be correct.
And as far as this Hufferd; ..”gives us such a black eye.”
Who in the fuck is “us” Hufferd? Who is “we” on this boat you try to float? Why can’t you even THINK on individual terms? You are so collectively conditioned that you cannot even think in your own personal terms, but have to beg the warmth of the group for comfort.
Your like a child with a security blanket…
…and this is why you embrace the national security state. You don’t love Liberty’s Freedom Hufferd, you deplore it__you fear it, and you would deny all of us such freedoms
Every word – EVERY WORD you have put to this forum speaks on such terms, all of them. So don’t you DARE, ever__EVER speak to “We” as you and me Hufferd.
\\][//
hydrocephalus, You’re trying to mix eggs and olives here. Part of the truth is that majority rule is the only remotely fair way overall. You — you, hybrow, not you everybody — know that, but want to confuse and obfuscate, just like an oldtime Russian Communist. It’s a hallowed tradition, eh?
FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 10:00 AM – Hufferd pronounces:
> “Part of the truth is that majority rule is the only remotely fair way overall.”
. . . . .
“Fair” you say? To the contrary Hufferd, Justice can only be served by Law, not by the caveat of the rule of men.
A republic is the Rule of Law. A democracy is the rule of the majority, without restriction.
And this is the “democracy” you describe here over and again; one that merely rests on the rule of the majority unfettered by the Laws.
The Laws are based on the principles of Liberty in this Republic. Those principles are the foundation of constitutional law. This law rests upon the fact of individual rights guaranteed, NOT GRANTED in the Bill of Rights.
To claim that it is fair and just to trample such rights on the whim of the majority is clearly error of the most fatal kind.
It is YOUR opinion that is coincident with the “oldtime Russian Communist,” and their dictatorial power masquerading as a Republic. You are the closet socialist here Hufferd; it drips from your every pore, the stench of it wafts from every vile sentence you have written on this thread.
“Liberty and Justice for All” is not your credo Huffert, yours is the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” straight from the Communist Manifesto. You stand naked before us by your own words.
\\][//
You have dug yourself in so deep Hufferd, that you should reach Pellucidar soon.
\\][//
I thought I did, hy, with you broadcasting from there.
But you forget, hyboy, the law is always a man-made project, even where it involves registration of immutables in nature. “Desperado, why don’t you come to your senses?”
A new rule for you — check before you pollute.
Addressing, Ruffadam of FEBRUARY 14, 2013 – 6:43 PM
“What are the tell tale signs of a false flag operation? Well in the case of 9/11”
. . . . :
Adam lists 5 signs, and four of them are in our pocket firmly. The fifth is developing now with the revelations of the Connecticut State Attorney’s remarks as to witnesses and other suspects. So we should anticipate that as time goes by there will be further revelations that secure our position.
It is obvious already that there were other shooters involved, and it is obvious that the number and types of weapons involved has already been jury-rigged. The first crime scene report that did NOT mention a long gun on scene is of utmost importance, due to the specificity of the types of guns and the forensic examination by the FBI of those weapons.
\\][//
BTW Huffy, it’s Tourette’s syndrome, not “aussiburgers”…Lol
\\][//
With reference to my crudities? Where??
Hufferd squeals:
1] FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 9:16 AM: “Mr. H., You had them in your pocket firmly for 2 solid weeks and didn’t tell us, even in response to my repeated requests? I think you guys need to communicate a little more, and blather far less.
2] FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 9:10 AM: ” A NEW RULE FOR YOU — CHECK BEFORE YOU POLLUTE.”
3] FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 9:07 AM: “Oh, no. You lie. And will again.”
4] FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 9:12 AM “With reference to my crudities? Where??”
. . . . . .
All of it is HERE right on this thread Hufferd a thread climbing to and almost to reach 600 posts.
1} Not so Hufferd, not in my pocket, but in text right on this thread above.
2} You do not make any rules for me Hufferd.
3} I haven’t made a single lie here Hufferd, I have characterized you by your own words to that effect.
4} All of your commentary combined as a whole, display your “crudities”.
I will not be your gofer Hufferd, I am not your ‘Step and Fetchit Boy’. Again this thread is the record – I need not waste my time providing examples – those examples are here in the context they were made, time stamped and dated.
And as far as my last post, like many before I have the dates and times noted as to your “crudities”. In fact in the majority of my answers to you throughout this thread are accompanied by date and times and often a quote or partial quote of what I am referring to.
You have been the one who has spouted off quips without reference to what or who your are talking to or about. Just like the latest little blurbs that I am addressing now.
I don’t have to prove you a fool Hufferd, you have accomplished that well enough on your own. Weeks of utter bullshit from you here.
\\][//
Hyb, You’ve cooperated by making my case over and over and over. You’re so easy, because paranoia is your way of life.
Here is your glorious “democratic government” at work Hufferd:
Tony Cartalucci: War Crimes and the Global War on Terrorism – US Arms Al Qaeda in Syria, Mass-Slaughters Civilians in Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-and-the-global-war-on-terrorism-us-arms-al-qaeda-in-syria-mass-slaughters-civilians-in-afghanistan/5322826
You want it. You apologize for it. You support it. You claim it sits legitimately .
It’s YOURS and you can have it.
I want nothing to do with it, nor you.
\\][//
Your whole tool kit is a sledgehammer, hyby.
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 12:47 PM
> “Your whole tool kit is a sledgehammer, hyby.”
. . . . .
I have an adequate tool kit from calipers to fine detail tools, to scrapers and loop tools, to chisels and hammers…and it takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut such as you Hufferd.
Yes, I told you I would cooperate in revealing you Huffy, as you say on FEBRUARY 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, I have let you make your case; that you agree with the ‘rule of man’, as in the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which is your “majority rule” extinguishing the Law of the Constitution, which protects the Rights of Liberty from your mob rule.
You have huffed and puffed and blown your own house down. Congratulations.
\\][//
Craig, You were right — This topic certainly polarized and prompts a nasty backlash — as it deserves to! Let the serious national debate grow and reverberate, because it’s obviously been evaded too long!
“It was clear then that there was ”no good government but what is republican…because a republic is ‘an empire of laws , and not of men.’ ” There would thus be a republic if all was secured by laws rather than by the arbitrary rule of a single person or group.”
~John Adams, via Page Smith – ‘The Constitution: A Documentary and Narrative History’ 1980
\\][//
A republic is either a representative democracy — a way of having democracy — or it is an oligarchy — an autocratic control of society. It boils down to whether you want a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” or you oppose that principal. Which is it for you? Don’t dodge.
I am not the one who keeps trying to “dodge” with rhetorical bullshit here Hiveminder Huff.
You do this rhetorical hoochicoo again with this:
FEBRUARY 16, 2013 – 11:18 AM
>”A republic is either a representative democracy — a way of having democracy — or it is an oligarchy — an autocratic control of society. It boils down to whether you want a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” or you oppose that principal. Which is it for you? Don’t dodge”
. . . . .
I have explained this countless time here, and you have played back this disingenuous garbage every time.
Once again PuffBall, a Republic is a nation of Law, that Law is manifest through democratic PROCESSES, the FORM is a Republic. The Republic’s Laws are written to protect the Liberty of the WHOLE of the People – to provide LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. It is therefore a Form of government Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
Furthermore, as I have noted time and again you make these spurious arguments in the undeniable face of pure and utter tyranny by an oligarchy that has usurped the legitimate seats of power and now RULES by diktat.
What you seek is how I have characterized it, a ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ a pretense of ‘majority rule’ that is in fact a dictatorship…as it is today in Amerika.
Enough of your word games Comrade Hufferd.
And let me remind you of your lying words calling me the liar here – which you refuse to address yet again. Plainly, YOU are the liar.
\\][//
Let me make it crystal clear what Comrade Huffer is doing with his word games here.
He wants to force the term ‘democracy’ into the equation. So he calls it a “representative democracy”__but this is not enough to describe the system established, which is a nation built on the rule of law, not the majority rule of a democracy.
So the full and complete description would need be: “a constitutional representative democracy” – which IN FACT is a REPUBLIC.
Word games, rhetorical bullshit is all that we get from this huffing puffing clown, who would indeed extinguish the rule of law in favor of rule by a majority {which is made perfectly clear by his wish to dispense with the Bill of Rights}–A majority that is clearly manipulated into providing ‘consent’ to the oligarchy by the trance induced by the electronic media Public Relations Regime.
All the while, the Republic and its Constitution has been torn asunder by the agents of the International Banking Cabal, and the nation ruled by a draconian technocratic dictatorship.
This much is clear to any sane and lucid human being.
\\][//
Just one more for the evening…
So Hiveminder Huff, You assert that the people of the US have no right to protect themselves, and the Supreme Court has ruled the police have no duty to protect a person from harm. So we are to be left helpless.
How do you defend such an absurd situation as this? Is supplication to force from any quarter then our feudal duty?
\\][//
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation {under God} indivisible with Liberty and Justice for All.”
Have you ever recited this Hufferd? Do you replace the word ‘republic’ with ‘democracy’?
\\][//
It is my determination after this rather thorough review, that the arguments brought forth by Mr Hufferd are notwithstanding.
\\][//
republic = representative democracy
FEBRUARY 17, 2013 – 7:10 PM HUfferd again insists,
>”republic = representative democracy”
Which is only a matter of word gaming. The US is a “Constitutional Republic” as a form of government, that uses democratic processes. Under that Constitution the majority does not rule, as he has maintained. The instrument blocks the rule of he majority by it’s construction, which is the basis of the entire dispute here between the two of us. Simply stating: “republic = representative democracy” resolves nothing in that dispute, but is simply Hufferd’s way of disingenuously claiming he has been correct in his arguments.
He has not been correct in his argumentation, and has proven his ignorance of [or opinion against] the full rights of Liberty by maintaining his ‘majority rule’ stance. And this final post of his is simply another rhetorical dodge of his obvious errors – errors which are based on his mistake in defining the form of government as “democracy’. And this is why the term is dangerous to maintain, as it leads to the very spurious arguments that Hufferd has offered here in this dispute.
Let it not be forgotten that herein Hufferd has made argument against the Bill of Rights.
For they are a whole based on the inalienable Rights of Liberty. To disavow one right is to disavow all, for they stand together – and as such, fall together.
Meanwhile Hufferd claims that the current gang of racketeers squatting in DC are legitimate, which is what seals the seams of his spurious argumentation, which as a package is simply a bag of bullshit, rank and vile.
\\][//
Federalist Number 10:
A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and, as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that, in a large republic, there will be more “fit characters” to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the “vicious arts”, a reference to Rhetoric, of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic, a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Also, in a republic, the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments.
\\][//
And so Hufferd,
I will concede that as a simplistic rhetorical quip, one can say that a Republic is a “representative democracy,” but this does not negate the spurious arguments you have made here in favor of ‘majority rule” – which are in opposition to the immutable rights to Liberty that are protected in the Constitution.
Nor does it negate your position that the present Tyranny is in anyway legitimized by the fraudulent electoral procedures that put in place the current and past regimes in DC.
Again I maintain my summation that; it is my determination after this rather thorough review, that the arguments brought forth by Mr Hufferd are notwithstanding.
\\][//
Well, Madison means that it’s not a direct democracy — true enough. But, “delegates”, the word he uses, means “representatives” in an indirect democracy, still, to grasp and phrase it correctly, a democracy, as every grade school child not shot knows.
Anti-Federalist Perspective:
Republican Government – Brutus, no. 1, 18 Oct. 1787
“History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.” ~marquis Beccarari, as quoted in, Brutus, no. 1
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s14.html
… … …
It is my opinion that it was obvious in the debates at the Constitutional Convention, that the compromises therein between the representatives of the Northern states and the Southern states, that these would not hold, and that there would eventually civil war between them. By the same token had they remained under the Articles of Confederation, the North would have still intervened under what is known as ‘the responsibility to protect’ to give freedom to the slaves of the south. The war would have been essentially the same. The occupation of the southern states essentially the same, and would have led to essentially the same history from that time forward that it has.
The essential problem is that of imperial conquest that led this nation to manifest the “from sea to shining sea” conceptualization [Manifest Destiny]. The sufficient is never enough for ambitious men. This is why government of any sort is dangerous to the Peace, and to the Rights of Liberty.
This dilemma is bound up in the nature of human being, and will never cease for as long as this species exists.
The Anti-Federalist arguments against a large central government remain prescient and true to this very day. They only become more relevant as we are faced with a global central power that hasn’t even shown the pretense of concern for the rights of Individual Liberty, but shun it entirely.
\\][//
You’re badly off-base here as to what is universally meant by majority rule. Personal liberties (alternatively known as “civil rights”) are treated as exempt from political interference. Meaning that they’re not up for a vote. Such, recognized not so much in the original Constitution, but in the Bill of Rights, are basic freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion, the “right to privacy” being recognized later as guaranteed by the other, and a select few beyond that, including the basic right of a citizen to have a gun related to a “well ordered militia”. All other issues — everything else — all decisions within the sphere of what matters and pertains to the broader community — being subject to the will of the majority — democratic decision-making. Those are two related but separate spheres — liberties and majority decision-making. YOU should know that!
What Hufferd has proven is that some individuals will not change even when shown to be wrong.
What ruffadam shows is that some of the blind will blindly follow others.into the blind. Hope you pistols aren’t loaded!
Hello again Mr Ruff,
Yes indeed HuffenPuffer has consistently shown he will insist on maintaining his ingrained errors. Such as his last remark:
> “basic right of a citizen to have a gun related to a “well ordered militia”
. . . . . .
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is simply not chained to the “well ordered militia” phrase in the 2nd Amendment, as is proven with finality by the history of the text, words and actions of those who framed it, as iterated in the article by Randy E. Barnett that I cite below:
I know there are few here so interested in the delicacies of the Constitution as I, but those who might be should read this article by Mr Barnett ‘The Right to Keep and Bear Arms’, from Georgetown University Law Center [43 pages]
. . . . .
But further, as you and I both know the issue is crucial at this time, in that the nation faces that very “Tyrannical Government,” that was the prime meaning underlying the right to bear arms articulated in the 2nd Amendment.
All of Hufferd’s pseudo-intellectual blather put to this page as if it were a purely academic question, or some historical curiosity is his most profound and profane error here.
And as you and I know as well, the right to self defense is a natural right of Liberty, that protected by ‘government’ or not; is inviolable, inalienable, and out of bounds to any so-called authority or majority.
I hope your pistols ARE loaded Mr Ruff, and well maintained. But I pray the day does not arrive that you should need the use of them.
\\][//
The “Democracy” Racket: The Agenda of Western Corporate-Financier Interests
Funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI).
To maintain the naïve belief that this machinations are only meant to destroy foreign peoples and societies is simply suicidal ignorance. The agenda is clear, and it’s global application unmistakable.
The butchery abroad is plain to see, the draconian police state domestically is beyond debate. Again I cite:
West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger – 2013
The PATRIOT Act – The NDAA – The dismissal of Habeus Corpus – the expunging of Posse Comitatus in the Military Commissions Act – The use of torture as “legal” practice – The recent ruling that the so-called “president” can order the assassination of anybody on this planet including American citizens; See: Confidential DOJ memo reveals ‘legal’ case for U.S. government to kill Americans 04 Feb 2013
To assume that this Totalitarian State disguised as a “Democracy” has the welfare and safety of the people as their goal is simply preposterous.
\\][//
Thank you HR1 my guns are indeed loaded and ready to go within seconds should the need ever arise. They are clean and oiled. Also I will not be fumbling around in the dark trying to open a lock or a safe, no sir, my gun is within easy reach when I sleep.
My wife just went up to our local shooting range for the first time in her life and learned how to shoot and now I am confident that if I am unable to defend us she will be able to. She thought she was going to hate learning to shoot but she enjoyed it a lot.
Ruff, you do realize, of course, that you are still at a very considerable disadvantage, because your assailant(s) will already have their weapons out and be REALLY ready, while you’re still snoring. …UNLESS you post guards!
Opinion counter to the Law cannot make the law; it matters not what majority favors such “law”. Long unlawful practice does not make valid law. It is verifiable fact that the “national government” is Ultra Vires – beyond any rational doubt. The proofs of this are legion.
In 1913 the ‘national government’ colluded with the International Banking Cabal’s criminal scheme to put the people of this nation under debt bondage, and manipulated consent for entering a European war, creating a mountain of debt for armaments. In the 1930s another war was being arranged by the Bankers financing all sides in a military build-up. In 1942 the US was again manipulated into and embroiled in an even larger scale world war. All of this being manipulated by foreign financial powers who had secured the seats of legitimate political power by cunning and deceit. The political actors are only salesmen, front-men working for the money powers.
By 1947 the National Security Act became “law”, dropping an iron curtain between the people and the machinations of the “government”. By 1950 the War Power* was blatantly usurped by the Executive branch in acquiescence of the two other branches. In this same period the Executive was granted “Privilege” having no constitutional standing whatsoever.
This history is not a secret, it is in the open record, so any who are ignorant of it, are so by their own willful choice. “Ignorance in no excuse under the law”.
*[Congress shall have the power to declare war – Section 8: 11 – US Constitution ]
Note; there is no such legitimate position of Commander in Chief until the president is called to duty by a declaration of war by the Congress.
\\][//
HOAGIE-ROGY AND LACKIES: In a 2010 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed “tthat the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence.” THAT’S REALITY. SORRY, BOYZ!
U.S. Supreme Court is ultra vires.
THAT’S REALITY. SORRY DITZ!
{And you STILL don’t know the proper use of a comma “professor”..unless you think of yourself as BOYZ}
\\][//
One more time Hufferd,
You continue to cite the ‘Supreme Court’ in spite of the fact that it is an arm of the illegitimate draconian tyranny that rules this nation with an iron fist:
Opinion counter to the Law cannot make the law; it matters not what majority favors such “law”. Long unlawful practice does not make valid law. It is verifiable fact that the “national government” is Ultra Vires – beyond any rational doubt. The proofs of this are legion.
You clearly defend the following by making such declarations:
The PATRIOT Act – The NDAA – The dismissal of Habeus Corpus – the expunging of Posse Comitatus in the Military Commissions Act – The use of torture as “legal” practice – The recent ruling that the so-called “president” can order the assassination of anybody on this planet including American citizens; See: Confidential DOJ memo reveals ‘legal’ case for U.S. government to kill Americans 04 Feb 2013
As such you define yourself as an abettor, in collusion with the Corporatist Dictatorship, and are in criminal complicity with it. All denials aside and without standing; as every word you have put to this forum is here, dated and time stamped.
\\][//
Rogo, I’m just telling you that the way this country is being governed is the way this country is being governed. And if you guys really had pretentions of and guts for doing anything to change that your style, with your little pop-guns, you would have tried it and become road-kill years ago. And I think I’d have to work to overthrow any rigid authoritarian regime you’d set up and return it to real freedom (from fear, want, and what were the other two), anyway.
Hufferd, your post of FEBRUARY 19, 2013 – 5:14 PM,
Is simply more bullshit blabber* that does not negate any of the apologia your have made for the tyrannical system at hand.
And your next post of FEBRUARY 19, 2013 – 6:10 PM, does not speak to a single thing that Ruff and I or others have already put to this thread. We had already agreed that a large portion of the things that hit the web was counter intelligence ops to flame the situation. So why are you, now 630 something comments later flying this tepid bit of formerly established info?
I’ll tell you why, because your are a ditz that has the reading comprehension of a six year old.
. . . .
> * “I’m just telling you that the way this country is being governed is the way this country is being governed.”~HuffyPuffy
WTF is that lank of bullshit supposed to mean? How can you be so stupid in public like this?
\\][//
It’s true. You have no cajones.
Hufferd you remind me of the JREF turds that used to make ridiculous arguments to appologize for the obvious flaws in the official story of 9/11. Your lame appology above for the official SH story gaping holes uses the same tone, same type of argument, and has the same goal as the JREF arguments against 9/11 truthers. Oh there is nothing to see here folks it is all fog of war the school nurse was traumatized and “remembered wrong” that she knew Nancy Lanza, etc. LMAO Huffered you are a joke man and you have ZERO chance of dismissing the glaring gaping holes in the SH official story. ZERO!
You are in fact just making an ass out of yourself. Why you are doing it is anyones guess but it sure as hell is not to protect the reputation of the 9/11 truth movement. Notice it is not called “the 9/11 public relations movement” but rather it is called “the 9/11 TRUTH movement”? What that means is that TRUTH is the central focus of the “movement”. That is the group I belong to sir the “TRUTH movement”. You and all the idiots trying to supress investigation of SH because of how it makes the truth movement look are not even in the truth movement to begin with. You sir are a member of the 9/11 PR movement, you worry not about the truth but rather about how we look to the public. A real truther, which you are not, does not care how popular his ideas are but rather only cares about how true they are.
Perhaps if you were a truther way back in 2002 like I was, before it was popular and cool, you would know how much BS we had to tolerate back then from people just like you. See back then it wasn’t popular to be a truther, in fact it was extremely difficult to be one, friends and family turned against us, massive ridicule was the norm, and we were truthers anyway IN SPITE OF IT’S UNPOPULARITY. The same demonization process is at work here with SH and you are the official story appologist slinging poop against the wall and trying to ridicule us who smell a rat at SH. Well go right ahead man because it didn’t stop me from investigating 9/11 and it isn’t going to stop me from investigating SH either.
Go join JREF dude where you will be welcomed with open arms and you can get into a little circle jerk with all the idiots over there and make fun of SH truthers. Meanwhile I will be trying to uncover the truth of SH and as time goes on it will come out.
Huffered as far as how ready I am goes, don’t worry yourself about it ok. Just assume that the 2:30 AM raid will catch me completely by surprise and I will be captured or killed without putting up a fight at all. I like the fact that you assume such things and I like the fact that the people who will do the door kicking will assume the same thing. What is curious about you Huffered is why you are so eager to make gun owners feel so powerless against such an overpowering force as “the government”? If the government is so damn powerful that they can just easily mop up the gun owners then why pray tell are they concerned about confiscating all our guns huh? Since we pose no real threat why not just come in and get us all huh? Idiot.
ruff-ruff-ruff, It’s because I am a truth-freak. And I hate the image you All-Big-Talk and non-reality, evidence-flauting guys give the public of honest Truthers by being garbage-truck-chasing dogs. Join the Evidence Based community. In other words, Put-Up-or-Shut-the-Fruitcake-Up!
You hate the “image” people like me give to you huh? So right there you admit to being a 9/11 PR guy not a truther. See PR people are concerned with image issues while us real truthers are concerned with finding the truth. PR people belong at JREF or perhaps 911Blogger not here Hufferd. Go join the credibility police over there man. It isn’t my fault that you cannot read the many posts where we describe the evidence SH was a false flag. Try reading Craigs article at the top of this page again or the previous one or the scores of posts about the evidence you intentionally avoid acknowledging.
I am going to leave this unproductive discussion in my rear view mirror and be glad to wash my hands of you. This is the last moment I am going to ever waste on you again PR man.
Ruffy, Don’t be another dunce! “Info wars” is a good designation. Of course, I’m interested in us convincing the public of our credibility. Aren’t you? Maybe that’s why you guys trash it — it doesn’t matter to you, apparently. Well, it does to me!
“A supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”
~David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting in Baden Baden Germany in June 1991
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013McMurtryVol35Feb.pdf
“The 9-11 sacrifice is better understood within the deep-structural context of the unfolding plan.”~John McMurtry
To justify its meaning, the Straussian canon adopts a potted reading of Western moral and political philosophy from Plato through Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx and Weber. This impresses American political operatives of the faith, but Strauss is a failed philosopher turned down by Paul Tillich for his post-doctoral Habilitation and only saved from academic ruin in Germany by Rockefeller grant money. While not taken seriously as philosophy anywhere else, it is worth decoding its talmudic involution for the borrowed ideas that drive its covert state disciples and neo-fascist public “intellectuals” in America. The ultimately organising idea is to commend all forms of conquering and limitlessly expanding private capital as “natural right and law” with genocidal subjugations justified in glowing moral terms.
So I now concisely provide what cannot be found elsewhere: the inner logic of the supreme doctrine as perversions of great thinkers. Its framework of meaning and value helps us to understand why the 9-11 event could easily follow for the managers of the covert U.S. state and its Straussian planners as not at all anomalous or evil within their moral logic. 9-11 follows as a maximally rational and unique tool to achieve the objectives in fact achieved by 9-11, and the geo-strategic cabal behind it is servilely linked from the beginning to the dominant private transnational corporate and banking interests exemplified by David Rockefeller.
Reverse projection is, as always, the essential psychological operation.
Cui bono? – the first forensic question at any murderous crime – shouted from every
circumstance and consequence {of 9/11}.
“Total control of world human and natural resources and their organisation for the transnational money-sequence system has been vastly advanced by 9-11 to crush all human rights standing in the way, from habeas corpus and due process to protection from war-criminal aggression to seize other societies’ most basic sovereign means of production.
The carcinogenic disorder advances from strength to strength, recurring at another level in the financial 9-11” of 2008. It even more centrally dispossesses the world to serve the
“supranational sovereignty” of private money-sequence world rule with no committed life
function. Behind them both lies the ultimately regulating supreme value system which
cumulatively overruns and devours world life and life means as its globalizing feeding cycle.
Observe that every step of the global world corporate-rights system conforms.
What is required is logico-moral understanding of the institutional act of 9-11 as strategically rational from the regulating value system of global money-sequence rule. This is the ultimately ruling moral disorder, and it instrumentalizes and attacks human and natural life and life support systems to grow itself with no limit or regulation by life requirements. 9-11 embodies and exemplifies the supreme moral program in action to full spectrum control, consumption and profit by force of arms wherever it can. But its inner axiology evades recognition. Its agents no more examine or question it than the players of a kill-all video game. And its opponents have not penetrated its meta program or the principled life-ground to steer beyond it at the system level.”~Prof. John McMurtry
. . . . . . . .
This is not “government”. This is predation.~ww
\\][//
“The key is to understand the inner moral logic so all the U.S. covert state’s moves become clear within the underlying framework of moral meaning they express. Recognition begins with laying bare the value program behind every move BEFORE and after 9-11, and maintaining a stable understanding of physical laws to avoid being taken in by magic-thinking explanations. Magic thinking is endemic to the ruling world-view.”~McMurtry
\\][//
Well Mr Ruff,
It is rather preposterous for someone such as Huffy the Blowfish, who has such a deficit of credibility personally, to pretend that he has any to lend to anything else. His mouth writes a check that his ass can’t cash.
\\][//
Are such as those what you call facts?
I read Hufferd’s continuing whining. But his credibility is as effervescent as his gaseous arguments that have been made here.
\\][//
“In the wider commercial and state media, the same system-serving loop is more deeply rooted in the same transnational private money sequence regime. Its supreme and supranational moral goal is the covert ruling subject of the System in all modes. Its underlying grammar of thought is to rule out anything that conflicts with assumption of it as “the Free World”.”~McMurtry
And I wonder; does Hufferd really need the English here translated into Newspeak to understand this?
\\][//
But there’s much more to it than this. McMurtry can’t even hint at who does it.
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 21, 2013 – 12:36 PM, claims:
> “But there’s much more to it than this. McMurtry can’t even hint at who does it.”
. . . . .
Hufferd cannot have actually read and understood the McMurtry paper in question; Because McMurtry says EXACTLY who did 9/11 and why; and who the ultimate culprits are – explaining the structure of the global criminal system under the International Bankers.
McMurtry also explains in excruciating detail how the US is the criminal state system that I have pointed out throughout this entire thread.
Anyone who doubts this can read the McMurtry essay themselves:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013McMurtryVol35Feb.pdf
\\][//
He may have somewhere — who knows? Not in the sample you fed us.
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 21, 2013 – 5:33 PM:
> “He may have somewhere — who knows? Not in the sample you fed us”
. . . . .
Yea HuffyPuffy thinks it always better to speak from a position of ignorance.
“Who knows?” he oinks…well,anyone who actually reads the essay. But Huffy wouldn’t want to inform himself and break any of his “thinking” habits…Lol
USURY: The Weapon Of Choice For Evil Despots:
As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.
Kennedy’s United States Notes were not borrowed form the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
Just as in 9/11, those leading the “investigation” were those who were involved in the crime.
“When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln’s efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.”
“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — The London Times responding to Lincoln’s decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War.
\\][//
“The refusal of King George III to allow the Colonies to operate an honest money system which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the Revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin
\\][//
Hufferd is most obviously a creature of the new branch of hominids:
Homo Vishnu Stupidicus Technodroidus, ie: TVZombie.
This is the reason he cannot grasp McMurtry, nor Mr Ruff, nor I.
Hufferd is naught but a widget of the Hive-Mind. It is tragic in that he is only one of the great majority in this nation of the enchanted.
\\][//
Answering yourself AGAIN? But, who would be better qualified to understand you, right?
ruff,ruff,ruff, Yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! Once is never enough, is it?
Rogue, Ruff, etc.: Here’s the kind of questioning and evidence of a hoax I was asking for when you kept bashing and tearing me down, and you guys never provided it. –
Latest Posts:
Sandy Hook – The Truth, a Cruel Hoax, or Something In Between?
Gun Owners Driven to Panic by Their Leadership
People Respond to Conn. Tragedy With Calls for More Gun Control or More Guns
Monday, January 21st, 2013 | Posted by Michael Chester
Sandy Hook – The Truth, a Cruel Hoax, or Something In Between?
Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services
Videos ask and answer the wrong questions.
By Michael Chester
The tragic massacre at Sandy Hook has raised a lot of questions and spawned a lot of theories ranging from the official story that a lone 20 year old carried out the entire incident to the other end of the spectrum where some people claim that the entire incident was a cruel hoax perpetrated just so the president could propose gun control measures.
There have been many opinions with supporting videos on You Tube. I am presenting two such videos below. You may have already seen one or both of them before, but I would ask that you look at them again using maximum skepticism.
Please keep in mind that an important part of a disinformation campaign is use of the “controlled opposition.” Around here we are fond of quoting Vladimir Lenin who said that the best way to control the opposition is to become the opposition. What, exactly, does that mean? When an intelligence agency or group wants to perpetrate a false flag operation or another deception, they often create what appears to be an opposition group whose job is to create false leads that go nowhere or make irrational claims that can easily be proven false. The hope there is that a legitimate person trying to find out the truth will be lumped in with the tin hat gang and not receive the legitimacy that his research deserves. I like to use the example of the Washington Generals Basketball Team. They are the controlled opposition to the Harlem Globetrotters. They travel with them and their job is to make the Globetrotters look good. Of course, most people realize their role is this as it is presented as entertainment.
More subtle uses would include the Hannity and Combs show. The job of Combs was to provide a weak argument against Sean Hannity thus making him look good. That is not an easy task. Further examples are anti-gun legislation written by the NRA just so they can defeat it in Congress and look good to their members.
The first video here presents a lot of questions as to what actually happened that day, but all of the questions asked are, at best, tangential to the case. The real items that need to be answered are not asked. The second video does a pretty fair job of debunking the first video and gives feasible explanations for most of the questions that the first one asks. Watch both of them now and come back here for my take on them.
YouTube – Veterans Today –
YouTube – Veterans Today –
When I encountered the first video, I had many of the same thoughts as presented in the rebuttal video. First, a lot is made of the many changes in the story especially at the beginning. First Lanza’s mother was a teacher at the school, then she was a substitute, and finally she had nothing to do with the school. Lanza was a former student, who only attended for a short time and was then was home schooled. All of this can be easily explained as poor reporting by the first reporters present. With all of the competition in the news business today, it has become more important to get a story out quickly than to get the facts correct. Reporters repeat any rumors or opinions that they hear as facts. Later when the truth comes out they revise their stories.
The producer of the first video seems to be claiming that the whole incident was a hoax to create a favorable environment to pass gun control measures. There are several flaws in that assumption. First, with our current Congress, there is very little chance of any real changes being made in our gun laws. Second, such a hoax would require the total cooperation of all locals, local law enforcement, State law enforcement, and federal law enforcement. The chance of all of these groups keeping this going is very close to zero. Someone would make a mistake and the whole scam would unravel. A more likely scenario is that the massacre really did occur and a select group lied to these groups about what actually happened and they accepted the lies.
The producer of the first video seems to play amateur psychiatrist and claims that the reaction of the parents is inconsistent with grief. As presented in the second video, when you add in the soundtrack of the smiling parents speaking with Anderson Cooper, it becomes clear that they are recounting happy times with their child and their smiles are completely appropriate. I have been at several funerals where laughter broke out when funny or touching stories were told about the diseased. At first, the father outside the police department does appear to be “getting into character” before making his statement, but we have no way of knowing what proceeded this event. Maybe he was also recalling happier times. Some people react with laughter in inappropriate situations as a coping mechanism.
Stories from the neighbor and the nurse seem to raise a lot of questions, but after traumatic incidents, many people have false memories or outright lie to exaggerate their importance. I remember many years ago when I witnessesed a crime in a factory where I was doing some work. As a result of a domestic dispute a man abducted a woman at gunpoint and dragged her down the aisle and up a flight of stairs. There were two gunshots, which turned out to be fired into the ceiling. A sergeant with plant security went up the stairs and took the gun from the man and the State Police were called. When they arrived, a worker who had cowered behind a row of toolboxes during the incident went to the lead detective and told him “exactly what happened.” He included many details that never happened but he was the type of person who wanted to be “THE AUTHORITY.” I suspect that the neighbor and the nurse either deliberately lied to exaggerate their importance or have false memories and really believe their own fantasies.
The first video does raise an interesting “coincidence.” There was a training exercise for this exact scenario scheduled at the same time and near Sandy Hook. For a crazed lone gunman to pick this exact moment would be very unlikely but an organized covert team would take advantage of this exercise to provide cover for their real attack. A person who saw a man dressed in combat gear and carrying a rifle would be assumed to be a part of the exercise and not perceived as a real threat. Many intelligence experts believe that this is exactly what happened in the London bombings in 2005. There was a terrorist drill scheduled that day and it is believed that some of the actors who were hired to play the parts of terrorists were given real bombs and inadvertently became real suicide bombers.
There are many questions that need to be asked and were not in the first video.
1. How did Lanza enter the school which was locked?
2. Why were the children all shot with .223 rounds, but Lanza’s body was found with only handguns present?
3. Why would he shoot the kids, go outside, lock his rifle in the trunk of a car, then go back into the school and shoot himself?
4. Why did he have his estranged brother’s ID?
5. How did he get to the school? There was no car in the lot belonging to him or any member of his family.
6. Chris Rodia is a convicted felon. Why was a car registered to him found in the Sandy Hook parking lot.
7. Who called authorities claiming to be the principal of Sandy Hook and naming Adam Lanza as the shooter after the real principal was already dead?
8. Since Lanza only attended the school briefly 15 years ago and was then home schooled, how could anyone at the school identify him as the shooter?
9. How could an occasional weekend shooter, such as Lanza, shoot groups on his victims that only highly trained shooters can accomplish?
10. If the case is settled, why are American intelligence agents actively pursuing international suspects?
11. Who has the most to gain by terrorizing the American people?
I don’t have the answers to these and other pertinent questions and I don’t know who does, but they deserve answers.
Additional thoughts:
The second video may also be a part of the controlled opposition. It was carefully timed to discredit the first video and by association, others who question the official story. I don’t endorse either video. I presented both of them as a point/counterpoint. I beleive that both are part of a disinformation campaign to lead people to false conclusions and away from the truth. I would like to see answers to the questions that I posted above.
Why all the redundancy?
James Hufferd on FEBRUARY 17, 2013 – 10:02 PM asks:
> “Why all the redundancy?”
. . . . . .
It’s simple Hufferd, because throughout this thread you have attempted to frame the Republic as a pure democracy with your “majority rules” jabber. Because you are now speaking out of the other side of your mouth.
Hufferd again presents a fraudulent complaint.
So, another illustration is necessary to illuminate the nature of Hufferd’s errors and his attempt to veil these with this short rhetorical snippet…I now present two analogies for that purpose of elucidation, the nut and the tree:
Huffer, the huge nut: the bulk of your argument, does not fit in the tiny nutshell of the phrase “representative democracy”. For therein you have made arguments repugnant to the Rights of Liberty, claims to the propriety of simple majority rule, and defended the current illegitimate despotic ‘government’. NONE of this fits within the definition of the Republic as a “representative democracy,” but is in fact nothing but acquiescence to tyranny.
Using the term “representative democracy”, although needlessly cumbersome may fit the needs of some variance for construction and rhythm in a treatise. But it can only be said to be proper if the treatise itself is speaking to the genuine form of a Republic as founded in the Constitution. And this proper application to that context is not what we find in your commentary Mr Hufferd. We instead find you appealing to the propriety of unrestricted majority rule. By such argument you put mortal blows to the principles of Liberty that this Republic was formed to defend. This is the deep core issue down in the roots of your testimony that you attempt to mend with a simplistic blurb, a mere twig, as though it were a branch, a limb, the trunk, and the roots of your argument.
And your argument has been put long enough and detailed enough to have seen the whole of it and how it defies the principles of a true, “representative democracy” as the Republic you pretend to speak to.
As it is shown to be Hufferd’s wont to persistently attempt a rebuttal, I will anticipate this thus:
Those with the sanity and lucidity to parse between preposterous BS, and reasoned argument will detect immediately what Hufferd is up to, so there is no need for any further answers to his outrageous propaganda on my part. So let me again thank Mr Hufferd for the opportunity to use him as fodder in my defense of the true vast extant of Human Liberty, the only engine with which to attain true and lasting Justice.
\\][//
Trying non-sequitors now, I see.
Majority rule is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what is for dinner. Majority rule is a tyranny worse than almost ANY that has ever been. The reason is that EVERY person is a minority in one respect or another or for one reason or another which is why as HR1 correctly pointed out we have laws to protect the minority.
So, Ruff, who do YOU want to prevail in making decisions for the people if not the people? Would you please tell us.
I for one am determined to put an end to this 5th column of Neoliberal Revisionist Slop.
Upon examination every argument they make is historically wrong, misframing historical fact and illogical by all sane standard. Zionist occupied academia has turned out armies of so-called “experts” in every field with one agenda in mind: to destroy the bulwark of Liberty.
This agenda is given the greatest power by the Public Relations Regime that holds the vast majority in its enchantment, creating a robotic Hive Mind.
. . . .
Here we hear from one of the Hive:
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 15, 2013 – 12:52 PM:
> “Let the serious national debate grow and reverberate, because it’s obviously been evaded too long!”
. . . .
And my reply:
A “ serious national debate” Hufferd? With enchanted automatons such as yourself?
And where would that take us? You have made that perfectly clear: a Corporatist Police State, “legitimized” by the rule of your proletariat “majority” – Once and for all finalizing the demise of Liberty.
You delude yourself completely if you think that wide-awake and aware freedom loving people are going to go along with such a jury-rigged “consensus” – There will be blood. There will be civil war. The predator robots against humanity. The so-called “collateral damage” will be tremendous. This will all end in a technocratic high tech gulag, ruled by the ghouls you still yet do not recognize. Yours is suicidal ignorant naivete. You are under a hypnotic spell and know not your own self-interests.
. . .
But of course this argument is not made for Hufferd’s sake. It is made for the sake of those who are lucid and awake, or awakening, in hope that they will grasp what they are up against if they hope to regain the freedom lost, drip by drip, in the last two centuries.
\\][//
You got it sussed Hufferd, it’s in your pocket. If such a “national dialog” takes place, you and your mob will win…
Yes:
All is lost, the People are so stupid they will simply be led to slaughter and will have no idea what is happening. I just bought cigarettes at the store around the corner. The total was, 17.58. I remarked “Oh 1758, several years before the revolution.” The girl behind the counter, 30 something was blank faced. I asked, “do you know what revolution I mean. The one in 1776?” She was baffled. There was a girl of about 18 in line right behind me, I turned to her and said, “1776…ring any bells for you?” She was “like you know…ah, history isn’t my strong point..”
This is not an isolated incident by any means. I make little inquiries of people all of the time. The Amerikan People are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
\\][//
AND while these dribblewits oink and mew over their fear of “radical gun-nuts, they play right into the hands of the agenda to extinguish all rights. Their precious 1st Amendment Rights are now up for grabs using the very same arguments they make in their stupor:
. . . . .
> “Working to Counter Online Radicalization to Violence in the United States” -White House Blog:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/05/working-counter-online-radicalization-violence-united-states
. . . . .
So, there will be little doubt that our Hive-minded little fruitcake here will agree with this attack on the First Amendment, as it is an attack on his current opponents – or so he imagines. Because his imagination is not informed of the West Point paper that makes the definitions of who and what these “radical and violent extremists” are. And it just so happens that “conspiracy nuts” like Hufferd who has written so extensively on 9/11, happens to be one of these” violent extremists,” by evidence of his articles on 9/11.
And this is what I mean by these members of the Hive having no clue as to how they are involved in destroying their own rights and freedoms.
\\][//
Mr. H., You had them in your pocket firmly for 2 solid weeks and didn’t tell us, even in response to my repeated requests? I think you guys need to communicate a little more, and blather far less.
Craig, Something like MK-Ultra would make a hell of a lot more sense, and be far more controllable remotely than the scenario that it never really happened as such — which is the story bandied about that really aggravates a whole lot of people and gives us such a black eye.
Frankly I have little else to say to Mr Hufferd, other than to thank him for putting the cherry on top of my assessment of his lack of reason in argumentation; as he ends here with again flip-flopping back to Sandy Hook, rather than face the penumbra of issues he attempted to hand wave throughout this thread.
\\][//
On the topic of Sandy Hook, I will reprise the gist of something I spoke to earlier high above in this thread:
I spoke to the question of what our interest in the event is, that is the ‘why’ we should be interested in it.
I began with the keystones of investigative research, which are again:
To determine the meaning of any event these are the proximate tools;
MO – Motive – Cui Bono – and just as important; recognition of the actual milieu, or state of affairs the event took place within.
Again, rather than address the particulars of Newtown, but to address the general process of discovery, I will note that the prime difficulty seems to be in assessing the last of the four points I mention above; the actual state of affairs that the incident took place in. This question is in fact what took up the majority of the thread [to the chagrin of many]. It is just as essential as the other three keystones, and more important in the sense of awareness of where we stand in general.
That this event occurred in a draconian police state is far from incidental. That those so ready to hand-wave the evidence that it was a false flag are the same as those who refuse to face the fact that this is a draconian police state is no less coincidental and in fact the deep intertwining factor connecting the two combined opinions.
It was my lack of success in getting Mr Hufferd to acknowledge this fact of the current police state that motivated my remarks of, FEBRUARY 14, 2013 – 12:08 PM.
The reason for this present post is to illustrate that every word I put to this thread was indeed relevant to the issue of the Sandy Hook event. Deep State Events require deep investigation, beginning with the true nature of the State.
\\][//
Rogue, take away your arrogance and self-deception, and there wouldn’t be anything left.
What, Rogu? Your third answer to the same point?
This is from a new essay by Jon Rappoport, ridiculing the Criminal in Chief’s “State of the Union lie fest:
. . . . . .
“Who is this WE you keep taking about? And what is this TOGETHER? You mean we who are watching on television and you who are talking on television? You mean you who are slicing the Constitution into little pieces while ridiculing it as a Neanderthal document? You mean you who are covert agents of Globalism? You mean you who have been vetted to make sure you’re on board with the op to take American down into a planetary management system that will bring a thousand years of peace to people made over into androids?
You talk and the government gets bigger. You bankroll education and students are brainwashed into “uplifting social themes,” and become more dumb. You talk and the state-corporate media strain themselves into hernias to praise your erudition or passion. You talk and thousands of lobbyists who have the inside track on your soul parse your words and plan their new strategies. You talk and the American people desperately try to imagine you’re making a grain of sense. You talk and the winds blow and the snow falls and Somebody Actually Important, at a much higher level of the Mob, pats you on your shoulder and folds you up like a puppet and drops you in his pocket and walks upstairs to the Residence and puts you to sleep.
Asleep, you dream of a strange and alien thing: the freedom and power and independence of the individual. For you, it’s a nightmare.”~Rappoport
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-ruthless-state-of-the-union-the-current-crime-boss-speaks/
\\][//
And again Huffer,
Is it a plague of lighthouse keepers? Or; a plague of lite house keepers?
And how can you tell if you’ve seen neither a dust pan nor a reflective mirror?
Don’t take these issues lightly nightly or become flighty in your nightie.
It is however, neither rouge nor subterfuge, but a rogue fifth element circuiting to shock the zombies out of trance. Not a puffin’s dance__t’was yer very last chance.
\\][//
Let us then dispense with, once and for all, that the Constitution legalized slavery, or that there was any more proximate cause for the Civil War than the issue of slavery.
It has been fraudulently argued by neo-confederates that the issues were “economic”. But the issue of southern economics was clearly centered on slavery.
Let the Confederate leadership put this plainly for themselves:
Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, knew the information herein stated. He so stated shortly after the secession leading to the Confederacy. He admitted that the South DISAGREED with the views of the Founding Fathers and Constitution about slavery being a sin and violation of natural rights as the above references discuss. On Thursday, 21 March 1861, in his “Cornerstone Speech” (extract below), he specifically so stated in a public and published analysis, concerning the issue of:
“. . . African slavery as it exists among us . . . . This was the immediate cause of the late rupture [secession] and present revolution.
“[Thomas] Jefferson, in his forecast [prediction of possible U.S. history], had anticipated this [disunionism over slavery], as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split.’ He was right.
“What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact [March 1861, secession in effect]. But whether he [Jefferson] fully comprehended . . . may be doubted.”
“The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were,
[1] that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature [natural/inalienable right as referenced above];
[2] that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . . . the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away . . . .”
“This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.. . . . It [Slavery] is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them.”—Reprinted by Frank Moore (ed.), The Rebellion Record: A Diary of American Events, 11 vol (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1868), Vol. I, pp 44-49.
——————————————————————————–
President Jefferson Davis said likewise, emphasizing slavery as the underlying factor, in his Message to Congress (29 April 1861)—Moore, supra, pp 166-175.
——————————————————————————–
Emphasis on slavery as THE issue, was cited by the Charleston, SC Mercury (11 Oct 1860); and the New Orleans, LA Bee (14 Dec 1860).
——————————————————————————–
Slavery as the cause was cited by Southern secession documents, the voting process for secession, and the members of Congress of resigned to join the Confederacy. The seceders wrote the South’s Constitution to specifically uphold slavery, i.e., worded it unlike the U.S. Constitution. For details, see David Barton, “Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went to War” (December 2008).
——————————————————————————–
General Ulysses S. Grant concurred in Southerners’ analysis of slavery as causing the War. “The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.”—Personal Memoirs (New York: C.L. Webster & Co, 1885-1886), Vol. II, Chapter XXI, Conclusion, first sentence.
——————————————————————————–
Pro-slavery Reverend Dr. Smythe of Charleston said “The war is a war against slavery, and is therefore treasonable rebellion against the Word, Providence and Government of God.” [Abolitionists believed the opposite, that the War and Emancipation Proclamation were enforcement actions, the extreme opposite of rebellion.]
——————————————————————————–
“We went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought.” — Confederate Col. John Mosby, cited by Leonard Pitts, Jr., “The South fought to keep slavery, period” (Miami Herald, 14 April 2010), and: “Confederate ‘President” Jefferson Davis once flatly cited ‘the labor of African slaves’ as the cause of the rebellion.”
\\][//
Is it more pontificating? The pope’s job is open! What you’re lamenting is more a plague of the relatively wise.
Hufferd asks on 2/11/13 – 4:05 PM:
> “Is it more pontificating?”
He says this because he didn’t read what are historical proofs that slavery has never been legal in the United States, or prior under British Law. By refusing to even read or address the issues put forth therein, Hufferd abdicates his argument and continues to spill his ignorant bullshit.
\\][//
Again Rogu? I think you fired this one off twice.
You admit then Huffer, that the Constitution in no way codified slavery as you asserted in your commentary. . {?}
That slavery was always illegal in the United States.
Do not try to avoid an answer here – I am through tolerating your slipcraft.
\\][//
The original Constituion recognized the institution of slavery. If sIt sadly remained legal in some states (the 4 border states not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation) until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
“The original Constituion recognized the institution of slavery. If sIt sadly remained legal in some states.”~Hufferd
This is untrue and has been proven here in several long posts I have mad enumerating the laws and reasoning behind those laws.
It remained IN PRACTICE in some of those states, but being illegal under that Constitution, it was not lawful in those states. And I have it from the words of the very leaders of the Confederacy that they recognized that the Constitution made Slavery illegal, and they held that that was an unreasonable bearing upon them, and that they held that Slavery should be legal.
Practice of the unlawful does not in turn make it lawful. This is what I have been trying to drive through your thick skull Hufferd – it is still so today, what is being PRACTICED by the sitting “government” is not lawful. It is in effect regardless, isn’t it. The southern slaver states were in the same state of ultra vires. Slavery has NEVER been legal in the United States.
There was no need for Emancipation in those southern slave states, the rule of law was to be dealt with by force. The Emancipation was a writ, to enforce the law that was already in effect. There was no need for force of arms to be used in the Union states.
Again, your ignorance of real history leaves you flat on your face in this argument. And your ignorance is inexcusable as those facts have been given here on this very thread.
\\][//
Read especially paragraph 2–
The Thirteenth Amendment: The Abolition of Slavery
The Issue: What is the history behind the 13th Amendment? Is it “self-enacting”? What sorts of private activities might Congress regulate under its enforcement provision?
Introduction
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 hotly debated the issue of slavery. George Mason of Virginia argued eloquently against slavery, warning his fellow delegates:
“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, providence punishes national sins by national calamities.”
Southern delegates, on the other hand, argued strenuously that the new government should not be allowed to interfere with the institution of slavery. Delegate John Rutledge of South Carolina, for example, told delegates that “religion and humanity have nothing to do with the questions” of whether the Constitution should protect slavery–it was simply a question of property rights.
The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution–and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.
Slavery, as all students of history know, continued to be a divisive issue up through the Civil War. Southern states worried that the balance in Congress might tip against slavery, and so were anxious to extend slavery to new territories and states. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 (enacted at a time when slave states and non-slave states had equal representation in the Senate) permitted slavery in Missouri, but prohibited slavery in portions of the Louisiana purchase north of 36°30′.
The Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War inevitable. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.
Dred Scott
Before the Civil War ended, Congress passed, and sent to the states for ratification, the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” and authorized Congress to enact “appropriate legislation” implementing the abolition. The Amendment was understood to also make blacks citizens of the United States (overruling Dred Scott on that point). The House vote to propose the Thirteenth Amendment followed the Senate vote, and barely made the 2/3 majority requirement. When the vote was announced the galleries cheered, congressmen embraced and wept, and Capitol cannons boomed a 100-gun salute. Congressmena George Julian of Indiana wrote in his diary, “I have felt, ever since the vote, as if I were in a new country.” Ratification by the states quickly followed, and Secretary of State Seward proclaimed the Amendment adopted on December 18, 1865.
Less than a year after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress used its newly conferred power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, giving black citizens “the same right in every state…to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, …to inherit, purchase, sell, and convey real and personal property; and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Supporters if the 1866 law argued that its guarantees constituted “appropriate” means of “enforcing” the right of blacks not to be held in bondage.
The Thirteenth Amendment, unlike most provisions in the Constitution, is self-executing, in that it directly reaches-even without action by Congress- conduct by private individuals (slave holders). Because of this fact, Congress’s power under the Thirteenth Amendment allows it to punish forms of private conduct when it might not be able to do so under an amendment such as the Fourteenth, which restricts the conduct of states (prohibiting states from denying equal protection of the laws or due process).
The Thirteenth Amendment has not produced nearly the volume of Supreme Court decisions as has the Fourteenth Amendment, or even the Fifteenth Amendment (guaranteeing the vote to black citizens). In 1916, in Butler v Perry, the Court rejected a challenge brought by a Florida man to a state law that required all able-bodied men between 21 and 45, when called to do so, to work for up to 60 hours on maintaining public roads. The plaintiff, convicted of failing to put in his time on the roads and sentenced to jail, argued that the law mandated “involuntary servitude” in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Justice McReynolds, writing for the Court, concluded “the term ‘involuntary servitude’ was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results.”
Jones vs Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) arose when the developer of a surburban St. Louis subdivision refused to sell Joseph Jones a home because he was black. Jones sued the developer, alleging a violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1982) which granted “all citizens of the United States…the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens…to purchase…real property.” The Court rejected the developer’s argument that Congress lacked the power under Section 2 of the 13th Amendment to ban private discrimination in housing. According to the Court in Jones, so long as Congress could rationally conclude that private discrimination in the housing market was “a badge of slavery,” the statute should be upheld.
Finally, in Memphis v Greene (1981) the Court reversed a 6th Circuit ruling that the closing of a road separating an all-white neighborhood from a predominately black neighborhood constituted a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Court found that the modest inconvenience and speculative loss of property value to black residents was insufficient either to be considered “a badge of slavery” protected against by the Thirteenth Amendment, or a violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act enacted under the power granted to Congress by Section 2 of the amendment. Four dissenting justices would have found the closing to violate the 1866 Act.
42 U.S.C. 1982: (1866 Civil Rights Act, which the Court found to be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the 13th Amendment–even as it reaches private discrimination):
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property
Last Call Hufferd,
You are wrong again:
It was the Free States that forced the 3/5ths Clause unto the Constitution of the United States … (defunct) 3/5ths Clause in the United States Constitution …
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves themselves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals.
The Northern delegates in no manner whatsoever considered the black slaves as any less human that anybody else. It was the Southerners who held this invidious belief, but they wanted to count these people as fully human when it came to apportionment, a pure Machiavellian political ploy.
So you see, it was not asserted that the slaves were only 3/5ths human as is the common misapprehension of this clause, it was to prevent the slave holding states from gaining larger representation, and thus they would have less political power in the House of Representatives.
This is again, another common misconception of the ignorant larger public.
As it was the slave states because of continued illegal importation and breeding the slaves like livestock, their numbers increased dramatically, almost exponentially, overwhelming the census, even in spite of the 3/5ths compromise, the South was soon experiencing increased representation. It was these pressures that finally brought about the election of Lincoln, and the final eruption of the Southerners in declaring secession and the formation of a separate nation.
The 3/5ths clause in no manner whatsoever made slavery legal in any of the states. And as is noted the leadership of the Confederacy came out and said plainly that the Constitution’s view of slavery was that it was illegal, was the reason for secession. Everyone at the time knew that the Constitution granted the rights of Liberty to all human beings, and as such slavery was forbidden on those very terms.
…..
As promised Hufferd, nothing else will be answered. You are wrong and the argument is over.
\\][//
As I will allot no more time to Hufferd here, I leave this summation:
In summation, for all to grasp the totality of my constitutional argument, the list below covers the key points, with two that are essential reading:
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 – 1:03 AM
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 – 3:33 PM
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 – 4:38 PM
FEBRUARY 9, 2013 – 12:17 AM
FEBRUARY 9, 2013 – 5:29 PM
FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 2:01 AM
FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 2:24 AM
FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 1:36 PM
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 – 2:07 PM –*[Confederates admit slavery illegal under the Constitution]
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 – 8:36 PM
FEBRUARY 12, 2013 – 12:04 AM–* [3/5ths compromise]
\\][//
Consistently and distressingly wrong, as follow-up appraisals and expert cameos conclusively showed.
Pathetic! You flaunt every knowledgeable source to vindicate your ignorance. And your followers say, “Oh, he’s right. Git out, troll.”
FEBRUARY 12, 2013 – 11:14 AM HufferD says again without referring to what his is answering:
> “Pathetic! You flaunt every knowledgeable source to vindicate your ignorance. And your followers say, “Oh, he’s right. Git out, troll.”
. . . . .
I am so sorry Huffy, but you have not presented “EVERY knowledgeable source”.
You brought this to the table:
> “The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution–and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. ” ~http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html
This is patently false, as is shown by the bracketed commentary in the sidebar that leads to these false conclusions. And I would note that these are not the words of the Constitution itself you read above – it is COMMENTARY on that Constitution, and as such can be shown to be false by the actual words of the Constitution in the context they were made.
There are thousands of pre and post Civil War commentaries from many perspectives. This perspective given is actually apologia for the Southern slave owners, who benefit by the confusion drawn therein, and those who wish to frame the Founders as incompetent as expressing law pertinent to the principles of Liberty.
From the sidebar to this essay:
Provisions in the Original Constitution – [from sidebar]
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons] *
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves]*.
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]*
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]*
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808] *
…No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
*Note: bracketed explanation; are not what the words themselves say, but are “leading” commentary.
For example:
>Article IV, Section. 2. “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall…etc.
This actually refers to Indentured servitude, not slavery*
Indentured Servitude
Indentured servitude was a form of debt bondage, established in the early years of the American colonies. Farmers, planters, and shopkeepers in the colonies found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because it was so easy for potential workers to set up their own farms.[1]
In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of settlers to the New World from the British Isles came as indentured servants. Given the high death rate, many servants did not live to the end of their terms.[6] In the 18th and early 19th century, numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners, a form of indenture.[7]
It has been estimated that the redemptioners comprised almost 80% of the total British and continental emigration to America prior to the Revolution.[8] [wiki]
. . . . . .
The slave-holding south seceded from the Union because they were bound to a constitution that held slavery to be illegal. The leaders in the government of the rebel states stated this outright. {As I quote them – FEBRUARY 11, 2013 – 2:07 PM}
The Articles of the Constitution cited above, are misconstrued by the leading words in brackets.
These articles addressed the indentured servants held by contract to a set term of labor, and had nothing to do with slaves. Slavery was illegal under the federal constitution.
In indenture the owner, owned the contract – not the person.
\\][//
It only took a few, Rogy boy.
Hufferd – FEBRUARY 8, 2013 – 10:46 AM
“The Constitution cannot be altered by simple legislation (statutes), but the body of laws obviously can be, and is all the time. As everyone else knows.”
. . . . . .
Let’s examine the reasoning and underlying false assumption of Huffer’s comment above.
As I had said earlier, and how he agree’s: “The Constitution cannot be altered by simple legislation (statutes).
But then adds: “but the body of laws obviously can be..”
Herein Huffer disregards the fact that any law or statute passed and put into effect, that does not comport with the Constitution is in EFFECT and in PRACTICE amending the Constitution unlawfully. It is merely an attempt in Law – However being put to practice that are clearly unconstitutional, is a covert attempt to reframe the Constitution as saying what is unlawful is indeed lawful.
The Racket’s lawyers are expert in rhetorical bullshit legalese. I gave the example of Hayden in commentary above. When the Racket is caught in such bullshit, they simply deny that the obvious stinking pile right in front of us is bullshit.
It is rare, although it does happen, that these racketeers will come straight out and say that the Constitution is ancient and inadequate, so to hell with it. Senator Hyde was one who did, but they tried damn hard to erase it from the record, both Congressional and the C-span cable feed.
However, if you seriously consider The PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, the use of Torture, Kidnapping, and Assassination of US citizens as Constitutional, you have a serious fever and are delirious.
And anyone who can claim with a straight face that this so-called “government” is acting constitutionally, and is not in fact despotic and draconian and utterly illegitimate, is equally delusional.
Whatever picture this draws of you Hufferd, is clearly your self-portrait.
\\][//
Painter,
Why is it that you tar with such a broad brush all Americans who defend the second amendment as “gun nuts” who are “dangerous to the general public”?
A second question I have for you is why you think that gun control works at all?
Mexico has a complete gun ban and it is a hell hole of violence since the drug cartels don’t seem to give a rats ass what laws are made against guns. They have guns and they use them regardless of law and nothing you can say will change that truth. In your world the criminals and illegitimate despotic government will be the only ones with guns. Amazingly bad idea Painter just ask the families of the people disarmed and then killed by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, all big advocates of gun control by the way.
Oh I can hear it now… “that kind of thing will never happen here.” Really? Why not?
Chicago and Washington DC have gun bans and guess what? Yup they both have off the chart rates of gun violence while places like Texas where peoples right to bear arms is not so heavily infringed have some of the lowest rates of gun violence. Face the truth Painter gun control measures have the exact opposite effect to the one you want. Face the truth Painter more armed citizens means lower crime rates, that is the documented fact. The only ones who benefit from gun control are the tyrants since it makes their total takeover so much easier.
Besides Painter the last thing in the world you want to do is go to the door of a “gun nut” and try to takes his weapons away. When asking for their guns fails what are you going to do then?
I would defend the Second Amendment, too. Except, I don’t believe that the Second Amendment is even under attack. Certainly not according to the Supreme Court ruling that what they called “sensible gun laws” would not infringe the Second Amendment. What makes you say the Second Amendment is under attack? Who is opposing it? I haven’t heard anyone propose abolishing it.
“What makes you say the Second Amendment is under attack? Who is opposing it? I haven’t heard anyone propose abolishing it.”~ Hufferd at 11:50 AM on 2/10/13
YOU Hufferd are opposing it!
Infringement is an abolishing, as a portion of a whole taken away irreparably and mortally wounds the whole.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
. . . . . . .
You say:
“Supreme Court ruling that what they called “sensible gun laws” … The sensible gun law is the 2nd Amendment. The practice of passing an unconstitutional ruling does not make it constitutional simply because those so ruling decree that it is. Gun control is unlawful under the Constitution__end of story.
As has been expounded before here, the “federal government” squatting in DC is proven to be illegitimate – and in far more profound ways that the infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
That this cabal ruling over the Amerika of today is plainly tyranny…blatantly so. There is no sane argument to make against this assertion.
The laws and statutes that are created by such an illegitimate body are constitutionally voided because the body that sits as the usurper cannot legitimately void the Constitution that it attempts to supersede
It is therefore glaringly obvious that disarming the population in the face of tyranny – not only being illegal and unlawful, is delusional lunacy.
those who would supplicate themselves before this despotism are stark raving mad.
\\][//
Do – or do you not – support background checks as a requirement to purchase a gun?
Painter, the original story on Connecticut State Attorney Stephen Sedensky comes from:
Ralph Lopez, “Sandy Hook DA Cites ‘Potential Suspects,’ Fears Witness Safety,” Digital Journal, February 5, 2013.
“In a December 26 court plea to postpone release of contents yielded through five search warrant, Connecticut State Attorney General Stephen Sedensky argued that unsealing such findings might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by divulging evidence heretofore known only to other “potential suspects.”
Pointing to “information in the search warrant affidavits that is not known to the general public,” Sedensky also argued that opening the warrants would “identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being.”
\\][//
As per my post of 2/9/13 – 11:27 AM
‘Sandy Hook: Law Enforcement Officials Now Admit Possibility of Multiple Shooters’
I wonder if it will ever be revealed publicly? I wonder if they are “protecting” the witnesses or hunting them down?
We should stay on top of Newtown Obits…I am expecting something to happen to Ryan Lanza, or even Peter. I think they were both being set up, and were supposed to be out of the picture and the script boys got screwed up….i
If there was something Ryan and his father just happened to do together in the days just prior, and they weren’t on their regular schedule – I would trust they are saying “hmmm?” to each other over what looking back on may be indicators that something was up.
There is a back story to the tales of the death of the dad, and the missing girlfriend__Mr Suspicious is scratching his chin.
\\][//
If, if, if. The true, base facts could be anything. Hoping or guessing won’t reveal or change them at all. If there were two, there were two. If ten, ten. If Obama is Ryan’s father, so be it.
You denigrate by slander even the good, clean, legitimate Anglo-Saxon language — of which you know nothing.Your “responses” make those of an angry 2-year-old throwing food and screaming calm rational by comparison. You’re proud, I’m sure, of your F’s in conduct. And what does that say about your followers?
>”You denigrate by slander even the good, clean, legitimate Anglo-Saxon language — of which you know nothing.”~ Hufferd 2/9/13 at 11:28 AM
. . . . . .
You are indignant to my charges Hufferd, while you continue to propagate the reasons I make them. It is up to you Hufferd to make amends. You have yet to withdraw a single insult you have made against Liberty, and continue to apologize for tyrannical government, with the empty claim of “it just ain’t so” but so it is Hufferd, proven beyond any sane or reasonable doubt – The nation suffers under illegitimate despotism.
“The Declaration of Independence has never been repealed. It was, for years, the only Constitutional law of the United States, and it is no less Constitutional law now, than formerly,” citing a then authority, John C. Spencer, saying that “‘The first act of our nation (the Declaration of Independence) being a solemn recognition of the liberty and equality of ALL MEN, and that the rights of liberty and happiness are inalienable—was the corner-stone of our [nation], and is above all Constitutions and all laws.'” Goodell, supra, p 574.
The Constitution read as comports with the Declaration, stands equal in law. Any other interpretation of the Constitution is repugnant and fallacious.
\\][//
You should know the Declaration wasn’t constutional law. Haven’t you heard of the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution?
“The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid-1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War.”
Until ratification in late 1777, the Declaration stood at the center of legitimate ratified law, and both the Confederate and Federal Constitutions are technical expressions of the first articulated law of independence. Both documents draw upon it and and expand the principles expounded by it. As the Declaration is not statutory in nature, it is more of a proto-constitution.
The English Constitution was never a single written document until a Frenchman, Montesquieu wrote a historical treatise. So it can be said that the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Magna Carter are proto-constitutions in the same vein.
Never the less, the Declaration is the basis and founding principles that developed into each “formal constitution” – You will take note of the fact that the Articles of Confederation did not carry the direct title of “constitution”.
So if you want to narrow your definition of constitution in such a manner, that is your opinion, and it is a trivial object to argue about. And especially so as you have shown to have no understanding of the ‘Principles’ that any of these documents speak to; which is the principle Liberty precedes any government and is not a grant from government. Authority is a grant from Liberty and no visa versa.
You simply do not grasp the crux of these matters.
\\][//
Just a further note to make the above commentary crystal clear. The Continental Congress was not just a theory, it was established by acts, and these acts were pursuant to the only document yet by their hand as independent states, the Declaration of Independence.
. . . . . .
And a remark here as to Hufferd’s remark about the Talmud; that remark was stupid and irrelevant to the conversation that has thus far taken place.
. . . . .
Also you put this forward:
>”A legitimate republic = a representative form of democracy”~Huffer
Again confusing FORM and PROCEDURE. A Constitutional republic using democratic procedure does not change the form of government. The Constitution clearly establishes a Republican Form, and guarantees the states will be governed by the Republican Form.
Anyone reading the Federalist Papers should be familiar with the debate over republican and democratic forms, and how democracy was rejected as dangerous to individual liberties. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay all spoke to this and agreed. Even Ben Franklin was in agreement, and spoke eloquently in this short quip:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over what to have for supper. Liberty is a well armed lamb.”
\\][//
Democracy isn’t about wolves and lambs. It’s about people. Demos = people. Democracy would be if three people voted on where to go out to eat, and the two who agreed got their way. If you reject “government by the people”, which is the literal meaning of democracy (however badly it may be applied), then WHO WOULD YOU WANT TO DECIDE instead of the PEOPLE deciding things? Who do YOU want to make decisions, instead of WE THE PEOPLE? (It doesn’t say “we the oligarchs” in the Preamble, does it? At least not in my copy. I’m sure you’ll try to dodge or screw around with this question to avoid answering it. Watch for it, folks!
James Hufferd – FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 11:33 AM
“If you reject “government by the people”, which is the literal meaning of democracy..”
Hufferd, It is not a rejection of, “government by the people”, to prefer a republican form of government that puts a break on pure ‘majority rule’ – the minority are part of “the people” just as well, and it is this minority’s rights to Liberty that are protected in the federal Constitution, that clearly characterizes itself textually within that document as a Republican Form of Government:
The Founders write the Constitution’s Article 4 § 4 to guarantee “to every State . . . a republican form of government” (the fundamental rights/legal equality of all people to self-determination and participation in the governmental process).
You still cannot grasp the distinction between FORM and PROCESS. You are smashing your face against the same wall over and again here. The historical and textual meanings are stated here time and again, and you refuse to face the facts.
\\][//
The ideal form would BE the ideal process. Answer my question: if WE THE PEOPLE are not to be ultimately in charge (= DEMOCRACY), then WHO? (I’m betting you will never answer that question, because you can’t.)
>”Answer my question: if WE THE PEOPLE are not to be ultimately in charge (= DEMOCRACY), then WHO? (I’m betting you will never answer that question, because you can’t.)”~Hufferd on 2/10/13 at 2:33 PM
I just answered your question in my comments of: FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 1:36 PM.
If you cannot understand that answer, it is not due to any lack of of reasoning or references on my part Huffer, it is that you cannot grasp what is in text right before your very eyes.
And that Hufferd is the very definition of a deluded mind.
\\][//
Alright. Who again did you say it was who should rule? I bet you won’t say again, either.
>”Alright. Who again did you say it was who should rule? I bet you won’t say again, either.”
~Hufferd at 3:19 PM on 2/10/13
I made it quite clear that it is the People that rule Hufferd.
I also made it clear that it is ALL the people, not just the majority of them that would lord over any minority. And in making that clear I spoke to the principles that would but the break on that lording over, which are the principles of the equal right to Liberty. Those holds on the majority are expressed plainly and clearly in the Bill of Rights as well as in body of the document, in the binding of the government to specified and restricted authority.
It is in the fact that I have made this abundantly clear time and again Hufferd, that makes your continuing to ask the same question over and over, a harassment and ploy of disruption. And therefore to cuff you with harsh attitude is in no way out of bounds for your blatantly foolish or agenda driven behavior.
\\][//
The reason the Sumerian version of democracy didn’t work was that they insisted on unanimity — which is usually impossible. In lieu of that majority rule is the obvious fairest course to take — as anyone would know. And 100% would still be a majority if you could get it.
>”The ideal form would BE the ideal process.”~Hufferd at 2:33 PM 2/10/13
Your inability to distinguish between IDEALS and PRINCIPLES is part of your overall blindness Hufferd. What you consider “the ideal process”; that is pure Democracy as form, is flawed as to the principles of Liberty. And I have gone through this here so many times that it is glaringly obvious that you are playing games here.
I have spoken to the danger of pure majority rule that would ensue in the democratic form.
I have explained the necessary break on a majority dictatorship over the minority. And that break is applied as to the principles of Liberty in that, that majority has no legitimate power to disparage the minority rights of Liberty.
This is WHY a Republican Form is preferred; for the protection of essential Liberty.
. . . . .
You are playing games here Hufferd, you ask the same questions over and again that have been answered over and again. And YOU are the one that will not reasonably address those answers back to you. This is disingenuous and purposeful distraction to hide your ignorance and wretched agenda to disarm the people in the face of a murderous and monstrous tyranny.
\\][//
You are without wisdom, Rocky. I have a doctorate in that.
FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 4:11 PM = Hufferd huffs up and puffs:
“You are without wisdom, Rocky. I have a doctorate in that.”
. . . .
Lol…
Is that a line out of a movie or a line out of the movie in your head?
Well, if it were true, it’s mighty strange you have put no wisdom here.
\\][//
“You are without wisdom, Rocky. I have a doctorate in that.”
The proper construction, if you are speaking to Rocky, would be:
“You are without wisdom Rocky, I have a doctorate in that.”
“You are without wisdom, Rocky” Textually portrays Rocky as saying, “You are without wisdom.”
“I have a doctorate in that.” This dangles anonymously in your construction, unless of course you are known in some quarters as Rocky…??
You have a doctorate in what Hufferd?
\\][//
Another disquisition! Mention a word and get a disquisition, complete with pomposity, pontification, and punditry to prove that Rogu knows more than you do or probably everyone! Everyone here already know that the Articles of Confederation was the original, failed Constitution, formulating a weak union with no real federal center. Been there, done that. But, the Antifederalists still were having no part of the solution, the 1787 Constitution with a real federal representative government elected by WE THE PEOPLE supreme.
“Everyone here already know that the Articles of Confederation was the original, failed Constitution”~Hufferd
The Articles of Confederation were not titled as a “constitution”, if you are going to make sense in your argument as to what IS and what IS NOT a constitution, you cannot pick and chose according to you empty opinion. By your argument and reasoning the federal constitution is the FIRST constitution. You cannot follow my subtleties of reasoning because you have learned by rote and are merely repeating the scripts you learned. You cannot reason for yourself. As I have said here before Huffer, you are a preconditioned automaton.
\\][//
Who said it had to be “titled”? Everyone knows it funcioned as our first constitution. Where do you come up with them absurd comments to dodge the question every time? You’re jello!
>”Who said it had to be “titled”? Everyone knows it funcioned as our first constitution.” ~Hufferd
. . .
It did not function as our FIRST constitution Huffer, if you were only informed of the historical facts you would recognize that the Declaration was the only ratified instrument that Continental Congress acted under as they were putting together those future articles.
They were able to get recognition from France as a legitimate government on the auspices of the Declaration itself. The Continental Congress secured loans for the purpose of waging the war against the invading British on the auspices of the Declaration.
The Declaration ESTABLISHED lawful government in the hands of the Continental Congress…it established the principles that that government stood for, it was in EFFECT a form of constitution on those terms. And this is not my mere opinion alone Hufferd, and you would know that if you actually study what other historians have to say on this head.
Read, the histories of the revolution and the Constitution by Page Smith.
In fact the federal Constitution itself was not titled by the hand of the authors themselve, but given that title by the printers who first made printed copies for distribution. And this is where the origin of whole debate over the term “of” and “for”:
*Constitution of the united states of America
verses
*Constitution for the United States of America
As I stated at the very beginnings of these arguments here Hufferd, you are ignorant of real history, because you only know the Lollipop History you were conditioned with in your academic programming. And this is propagated systemically by this false and mythical paradigm that you refer to as “reality”.
Then you ask:
>”I wonder, if you were debating, for instance, on TV, if you would dodge all the questions and go right to your obscene insults?”
You predicate this question on the false assertion that I have dodged all the questions. You are the one who is dismissing the answers given to your questions, and dodging addressing those answers in any substantial manner whatsoever. This has become glaringly obvious throughout the entire thread.
\\][//
Ask a Librarian
Digital Collections
Library Catalogs
The Library of Congress > Blogs > Law Library > The Articles of Confederation: The First Constitution of the United States
Search
All FormatsBookPeriodicalManuscript – Mixed FormatsPhoto, Print, DrawingMapPrinted MusicAudioFilm, VideoNewspaperWeb PageLegislationSoftware, E-Resource3-D Object
Suggestions enabled.
Go
Print Subscribe Share/Save
The Articles of Confederation: The First Constitution of the United States
September 16, 2011 by Christine Sellers
The following is a guest post by James Martin, a Collections and Outreach Specialist, in observation of Constitution Day on September 17, 2011.
The need for a united policy during the War of Independence led the thirteen states to draft and approve an organic document for a national government. In 1776, the Continental Congress created a committee to draft such a document. In 1777, the committee reported a draft that had been prepared by Delegate John Dickinson. After a period of debate and addition of amendments, the text was approved by the Congress and submitted to the states for ratification. Unlike the current Constitution, all thirteen states had to approve the Articles before it would be in effect. A number of years elapsed between the approval of the draft of the Articles of Confederation by the Continental Congress in late 1777 and the ratification by the final state in 1781.
Articles of Confederation
Under the Articles of Confederation, the power of the national government was exclusively centered in the Congress. The Congress, called the “Congress of the Confederation” under the Articles, was based upon the institutions of the Second Continental Congress and, as such, was a unicameral body where each state had one vote. The Articles provided for the annual appointment of delegates to the Congress, for the recall of delegates, and for the minimum and maximum number of delegates that would make up each state’s delegation. In addition, provision was made for term limits for delegates. Delegates were granted protection from arrest for activities arising from their official duties under a Speech and Debate Clause, a practice which was continued in the current Constitution. The Congress was to meet annually and provision was made for the creation of a Committee of the States to conduct business when the Congress was not in session.
The Articles provided for no permanent national judiciary, although the Congress was given sole jurisdiction in matters of boundary disputes between states, and as part of the war powers it was given the power to create courts to determine prize cases (cases related to the capture of enemy commercial vessels on the high seas). No national executive was created; instead, after the ratification of the Articles in 1781, the Congress annually elected an individual who served as the President of the Congress. The position had no broad executive powers, however.
As with the current Constitution, the Articles envisioned a level of comity between the states. The Articles provided that “the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states.” In addition, citizens were allowed the right to freely move with their property between the states. Clauses governing extradition and the full faith and credit of public proceedings were also included.
In some ways the powers granted to the Congress under the current Constitution and the Articles are similar. Both provide that the Congress has the sole authority for declaring war (although the Articles allowed for the States to wage war in instances of immediate invasion when the Congress was not in session). Both provide that the national government would conduct foreign affairs, although the Articles allowed for states to send and receive embassies with the approval of Congress. Both allow the Congress to set a system of uniform weights and measurements and to set standards for uniform coinage. The Confederation Congress could also regulate interstate movement of the mails.
However, while the Articles provided that the Congress would have the power to pay the debts of the national government, it did not provide for a means for that body to directly raise revenue. Although the Congress had certain authority which could be used to regulate the economy, it lacked enforcement power. In addition, because of the perceived weakness of the national government, the diplomatic standing of the nation suffered. The new nation was unable to compel the removal of British forces from the territory north of the Ohio River as required by the Treaty of Paris. These and other shortcomings resulted in proposals to amend the Articles, which ultimately led to the Constitutional Convention of the summer of 1787.
It is worth noting that the government created by the Articles did have a lasting impact. The Congress was able to successfully resolve disputes over the division of the western lands that had been surrendered by Great Britain after Independence. The Land Ordinance of 1785 (laws passed by the Continental and Confederation Congresses are called ordinances) and the resulting North West Ordinance of 1787 are the most long lasting as they provided for the disposition of public lands and procedures for organizing territorial governments in the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. The framework established by these Ordinances was to be used later in the history of the country. In addition, the Congress, in establishing the Federal Court of Appeals to resolve prize cases, provided a precedent for the establishment of the later Federal court system. Finally, although the Articles have not often been cited in subsequent legal opinions, the idea that the union formed by them was “perpetual,” as set forth in Article XIII, was cited in dicta by Chief Justice Samuel Chase in the opinion of the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1868).
Hufferd, you cite James Martin as to info on the Articles of Confederation.
“Come into the Gap”…looking for new genes? Oops I meant ‘jeans’…nope I meant the gap between 1776 and 1777…the Continental Congress was acting on the authority of what drafted and ratified text?
Some scholars put that gap as between 1776 and 1781, after ratification of the Articles.
That whole time the congress were certainly authorized officers of their various states {former colonies} but their actions as officers of the combined and united states was only authorized technically by the Declaration. And as noted earlier this was sufficient for recognition in the ‘community of separate and sovereign nations’ by way of the France recognition.
Now has it finally sunk in that, THE PEOPLE are the sovereign in the Republic, as per my opinions and statements? Your opinion on the use of the term “constitution” is of little matter to me. It is on this other head that we are at serious loggerheads, as well as your claims that the current regime sitting in DC is actually legitimate. Do you not yet recognize the tyranny here?
\\][//
Majority of Americans Say Federal Government Threatens Freedom
Washington’s Blog Feb 5, 2013
For years, “conservative” pollsters have said that Americans are furious at the government:
Rasmussen noted in 2010 that only a small minority of the American people think that the government has the consent of the governed, and that the sentiment was “pre-revolutionary”
Gallup noted in 2011 that a higher percentage of American liked King George during the colonial days than currently like Congress
And last year, Gallup noted that trust was plummeting in virtually all institutions
Liberals may be tempted to think that this is a slanted perspective. But non-partisan and liberal pollsters are saying the same thing:
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from 2011 found that 76% of Americans believe that the country’s current financial and political structures favor the rich over the rest of the country
The Washington Post reported in 2011 that Congress was less popular than communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill or Nixon during Watergate
Public Policy Polling added last month that Congress is also less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesman and Genghis Khan
And the liberal Pew Charitable Trusts noted last week that – for the first time – a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.
In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
***
The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government.
***
Majorities across all partisan and demographic groups express little or no trust in government.
Obviously, Democrats are currently more trusting in government than Republicans. For example:
The Pew Research Center’s 2010 study of attitudes toward government found that, since the 1950s, the party in control of the White House has expressed more trust in government than the so-called “out party.”
But given that even a growing percentage of Dems believe that government is a threat to their freedom, things are indeed getting interesting …
. . . . .
\\][//
10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook
by Jon Rappoport – February 9, 2013
“Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.
Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.”
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/10-things-the-media-dont-want-to-discover-about-sandy-hook/
\\][//
Do not repudiate the Constitution my friends, repudiate “the debt”. For the Constitution is truth and of real benefit, while “the debt” is a lie, a nightmare fable, and the scam of the racketeers who have usurped the seat of legitimate government.
We do not “owe” those who have stolen our wealth anything but rebuke and harsh punishments.
\\][//
You are not expressing thought here Hufferd, you are having bowel movements.
The bottom line here that you refuse to face, is that this nation is under Tyranny, open and vile and in our faces. All of this neoliberal squawk about the Constitution, about gun control is an attempt to blanket the FACT of this TYRANNY.
Your position is one that is self defeating. And you council all others to supplicate themselves in total defeat as well. It is plain to see that you and your jaunty little fellows here are as crazy and shit-house rats, begging for rupture by the draconian police state.
You have no reasonable excuse for any of this Hufferd, this is why all of your arguments turn out to be bullshit.
\\][//
Don’t you get tired of always being unpleasant in expressing yourself? What was incorrect in what I said? You just don’t like being called out.
FEBRUARY 10, 2013 – 3:24 PM, Hufferd asks:
>”Don’t you get tired of always being unpleasant in expressing yourself?”
….. ….. …..
What I tire of is the NEED to be unpleasant when faced with such preposterous bullshit as I get from someone like you. You haven’t “called me out” with anything of substance Hufferd, you have only used the obnoxious techniques of asking the things that have been adequately answered over and again. And as I said before, this is the same technique used by that infamous “9/11 debunker” the stooge, Albury Smith. You play the same circular games, and pretend an answer is not an answer by completely ignoring the answer.
I have made it crystal clear that in this republic, the PEOPLE are the government. I have made it equally clear that this means ALL of the people, not merely the larger portion, and explained the safeguards put in place constitutionally to block a tyranny of the majority.
Crystal clear – OVER AND OVER AGAIN Hufferd.
If you consider my behavior obnoxious Hufferd, it is a pale form of obnoxiousness compared to your disingenuous scatterjive.
\\][//
From Global research this morning….
A cross section of kill-to-injury ratios of major mass shootings suggests that if Adam Lanza acted alone in carrying out the Sandy Hook Elementary School carnage he was among the most accurate killers in modern history, exceeding even the lethal damage meted out by Al Capone’s machine gun-wielding henchmen in the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
Incident, # of shooters, weapon(s) used
Shot
Killed
Wounded
Kill-to-wounded ratio
SANDY HOOK (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223
27 Shot
26 (96.2%) killed
1 (3.8%) wounded
26:1 kill-wouded ratio
…….
Aurora, CO (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223
71
12 (16.9%)
59 (83%)
1:5
……….
Tucson, AZ (2011) 1 shooter, Glock 9mm
14
6 (42.8%)
8 (57.1%)
1:1.2
………..
N. Ill. U (2008) 1 shooter, 9mm
26
5 (20%)
21 ((80%)
1:4
………
Virginia Tech (2007) 1 shooter, 9mm pistol
49
32 (68%)
17 (32%)
2:1
………
Columbine, CO (1999) 2 shooters, 12 ga., 9mm
33
12 (36%)
21 (64%)
1:2
……….
U. Iowa (1991) 1 shooter/.38 spec.
6
5 (83%)
1 (16%)
5:1
……….
Stockton, CA (1989) 1 shooter AK-47
35
5 (14%)
30 (86%)
1:6
……….
École Polytechnique/Montreal Massacre (1989) 1 shooter, Ruger Mini 14 .223
27
14 (52%)
13 (48%)
1.1:1
………
Cal. St. Fullerton (1976) 1 shooter .22 LR semi-auto
9
7 (78%)
2 (22%)
3.5:1
…………….
Texas Tower (1966) 1 shooter
48
16 (33%)
32 (67%)
1:2
…………
St. Valentine’s Day Massacre (1929) 2 shooters, .45 submachine guns
7
6 (85.8%)
1 (14.2%)
6:1
Kill-to-wounded ratio
SANDY HOOK (2012) 1 shooter, AR-15, .223
27 Shot
26 (96.2%) killed
1 (3.8%) wounded
26:1 kill-wouded ratio
Thanks Alistair, and in only about four minutes this carnage is said to be wrought by a boy-man with no military training, nor proof that he ever practice at a shooting range. No evidence found that he had signed in at any of the local Newtown ranges.
Beginners Luck? MKUltra Training? Additional Shooters? A fleet of motor scooters? A trip to the mall scouting hooters?
I can’t tell you my man…I never got my doctorate in “wisdom” (grin).
\\][//
HR1,
At this point I am comfortable that you and I and a few others have made our arguments and they have proven to be solid. I am also comfortable that Hufferd IS PLAYING GAMES as a true troll does. I am comfortable that Painter is in a dream world with it’s own built in Alice In Wonderland “logic” to it. Tamborine Man is just slinging poop on the wall trying to acomplish what? I have no idea. It is bizarre though and I have no desire to read any more of the pseudo spiritual crappola that has zero to do with the ongoing thread. From here on out I suggest minimal effort be put forth in countering all this madness, perhaps just repost relevant parts of previous posts as needed since we have already addressed the issues many times. On that note I now repost part of an erlier comment I made to Hufferd:
“I have seen this tactic of avoiding the arguments that decisively rebutt your positions used so often that I am not even surprised anymore. I say the “government” is not legitimate and I listed my reasons and evidence clearly. Now because your position that the sitting regime is legitimate has been crushed you simply plan to ignore it, slip in some subject change or another, and then simply re-use the argument later as though it was never rebutted. That is disingenuous behavior and I have seen you do it in relation to the “evidence” SH was a false flag discussion as well. I answered you on that point and HR1 has responded several times as well and yet you repeatedly claim no one has presented any evidence to support the contention. Dishonest sir.
You are a classic prototype I have unfortunately dealt with many times before. When cornered you evade or pretend the cornering never happened. I have news for you sir, when an honest person is shown to be wrong he/she admits it and learns from the mistake. People like you cannot even admit that any argument that proves them wrong ever even existed, they pretend the words were never even spoken. Well the words have been spoken sir and your arguments have been decisively discredited. The fact that you ignore that reality and refuse to acknowledge that any such thing ever happened doesn’t change the fact that it did.”
Ruffy, it’s not surprising that the Italians get the crowd to cheer for them playing the Germans when the match is in Rome. But don’t bet too heavily on anyplace else.
>”And what does that say about your followers?”~ Hufferd – 11:28 AM 2/9/13
. . . . . .
Ah yes…Lol…my legions of followers…
I would be more concerned about your long tenure teaching and the portion of young minds you may have poisoned with your crank garbage. This is the sad legacy of corrupted academia in postmodern Amerika: Cottoncandy brains selling Lollipop History. It’s a Born Sucker Machine.
\\][//
You’re flailing in all direction.s But without any claws.
“A republic…if you can keep it.”~Ben Franklin
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not in the commission of a crime, nor in arguing law.
To make argument on the topic of constitutional law from such great depth of ignorance of what that law is, although not a crime in itself, promotes the commission of crime; such as the arguments put forth today for the banishment of weapons by the force of the authority of the state. To urge the state act criminally is tantamount to calling for armed violence against an innocent segment of the population.
Were such actions to actually come about, those who combined to urge such acts could well be liable for aiding and abetting. In a broader setting support of a tyrannical state in itself is walking a fine line of legality.
First Amendment protections or no, if violence ensues liability increases accordingly.
\\][//
A legitimate republic = a representative form of democracy, a system created for self-government by WE THE People, not a Talmud.
{Posted a 2nd time, because when using the normal comment link, it places it up with comments from Feb 3 and not at the bottom of the thread. So this uses a reply at the bottom. In any event, it underscores my comments from this very posting regarding how this blog is now being messed with.}
Mr. Hufferd wrote with respect to the word “Socialism”:
Mr. Rogue responded:
I was able to learn the context (“Socialism”), because I read what came in via email, whereby WordPress adds information about what is being responded to and from whom.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rogue missed the context from having read it here in the forum, because Mr. McKee’s blog is being messed with (I think). Although each comment has a “Reply” link for the purposes of nesting (up to 3 levels according to Mr. McKee’s settings,) nesting no longer seems to work in this thread, particular this far down. For that matter, sequential placement is a bit messed up as well.
[I contend that Mr. McKee’s blog is being messed with in other ways. Granted, some of this may be decisions made by the designer of the template that Mr. McKee chose. One messing-with is that the light blue background color disappears for me on FireFox at about “Page Down #37”, being replaced by the darker purple overall background color and making the text significantly harder to read. Another messing-with is that the direct-URLs to a comment are no longer exposed (but are available if you know where to look in the source HTML.)]
On to other matters.
I made two assertions in the same sentence about Mr. Rogue. The first was based on my experience with Mr. Rogue that he occasionally misconstrues the words of others. Because I was being kind to the forum, I did not provide links. Despite the fact that Mr. Rogue ~KNOWS~ my linking ability, he taunts:
Okay, I’ve got more, but here are just three [9/11 RABBIT-HOLE WARNING!!!]:
– How much more shit are you going to allow this shitheaded clown Señor stir-up? (2012-11-21)
– Chumming the waters (2012-10-28)
– “Fizzling” is a bullshit term? (2012-03-14)
The second assertion I made was that Mr. Rogue finds flame wars irresistible. To which Mr. Rogue reinforces:
Even the enemies of 007 call him respectfully “Mr. Bond.” Mr. Rogue should become more familiar with such “Mother Hubbard nanny-speak,” for it is the language that public officials, police officers, judges, congress, and presidents expect. Behold the power of such “glamour yammer!” Unlike “Anglo-Saxon” slurs, it won’t get you banned from a forum, and is such an awesome tool to help a writer stay on topic. To call it “effusive and offensive”? Another misconstrue, Mr. Rogue, to prove my first assertion, I see.
I don’t have to pay full attention to Constitutional arguments to spot instances where Mr. Rogue lost a respectful tone, veered close or into “Anglo-Saxon” slurs, and exceeded the posting count of others in order to dominate.
FTR, I question the legitimacy of those in power based on how far they’ve strayed from the Constitution and how they’ve been corrupted by money to do the bidding of corporations.
Now back to the subject.
Sandy Hook Revisited
It seems to be that some disagreement exists whether we can prove that Sandy Hook was a false-flag Psy-Op. The first video is a start. Rather than embed these videos and make your browsers run & load slow, I’ve provided links instead.
– Full Scale Event (FSE), and “everyone must sign in.”
– Photo Journalist gets harassed
– Sandy Hook Yellow jacket kid walking in circles
Here’s an article of interest.
Sandy Hook: Law Enforcement Officials Now Admit Possibility of Multiple Shooters -Intelhub via Pakalert Press
The above came mostly from Mr. Rogue’s home COTO court, whose top-level article is worthy of serious consideration.
Sandy Hook Was Missing Kids Alright!
//
Was wondering when you were going to emerge showing your true colors Maxi. You come out onside with hufferd and painter and initiate a full frontal attack on HR? What are you going to do padman, run and hide behind them if he engages you? Bit of a coward me thinks.
What is this bunch of galoots, Posse comitatus or the Regulators? You exact loyalty oaths?
> “What is this bunch of galoots, Posse comitatus or the Regulators? You exact loyalty oaths?”~Huffer
A Muffler Huffer, for the anal hurlant you spew.
I do not exact loyalty oaths Huffer; the Constitution requires an oath of office to faithfully uphold the laws of that Constitution. Have you really never heard of the “swearing in ceremony” for officers of the state?
\\][//
Rogu, It’s you and your lackies.
Dear Mr. Veritable1,
What you, as COTO-crew-cut, are too dense to realize is (a) that this is ~MY~ home court and (b) that Mr. Rogue and I have a year-long history here. I owe Mr. Rogue a debt of gratitude for the debates we’ve had.
I respect Mr. Rogue’s opinion and even find myself agreeable most of the time.
Most of the time is not all of the time. I will call Mr. Rogue on his shit, which I have done.
My true colors have always been on display. You, on the other hand? As you’ve displayed on COTO, you put more stock in your “relationship” to somebody than whether or not that “somebody” was right or wrong on some topic. A true friend will tell you when you’re full of shit.
Caught you in a lie, there, Mr. “Veritable-One”… unless you can cough up the URL where I’m lining up with Mr. Painter. [Trick question, so I will settle for the article’s URL and the date stamp of my alleged offense.] Putting your lying together with previous instances of your vulgarity, and the bottom line is that you need to improve your demeanor.
El-Oh-El, Mr. “Veritable-One”! You have no concept of what a “full frontal attack” on Mr. Rogue is. Even more funny is your implication that Mr. Rogue can’t handle himself and needs his saluting little buddy to step in. Mr. Rogue does better without you.
//
Señor, cut the glamour yammer. You can’t seem to express yourself without this effusive and offensive Mother Hubbard nanny-speak.
\\][//
Thanks Veri,
I appreciate having that video posted.
If the other long video isn’t applicable directly to the issues here can we request that Craig discard it? Videos are often the cause of early choking of a thread.
\\][//
Hi Craig Mckee,
I see that you have deleted Veritables video “Crossroads”.
What a shame!
Here’s a few quotes from the video that i trust many readers of this thread will have absolutely nothing against:
“The change of man is the key to changing everything else in the world.
Without it, nothing significant will change.
What we need is not just patching up, not just solutions to current problems. What we need is a transformation, a fundamental transformation which means a change of values, a change of thinking, a change of consciousness, a change in the way the human being thinks and acts.
I don’t think it’s going to occur first on the whole among the leadership, neither political nor business leadership.
I think there are always exceptions, and there are very enlightened political leaders, there are enlightened business people, but on the whole these people have too much stake on the present system, and they’re afraid of change, because their own base of power and wealth lies in maintaining the current system. So the change has to come from elsewhere.
….
It has to come from those who are in between, who have a choice, who are becoming increasingly concerned, and who know that something needs to be done, and the hope is that they will wake up.”
Ervin Laszlo PhD
“Man has to go through a change to realize that his life should be lived for the unity of mankind, in that we’re all like One man in One heart, and we’re sharing the desire, sharing the thought, where our mutual connection, making mutual concessions, and reprocity like cells of a living body.”
(Missed the name of the speaker)!
“….and when they find that it is cheaper and more efficient and more beneficial for everyone to feed your enemy rather than fighting them, then we are on the way to the new civilization we’re all looking for.”
Elizabet Sahtouris PhD
It’s also a crying shame that the reader has now missed out on the “Caterpillar and the Butterfly” allegory, as well as the “Credit roll song” by Aaron Chester and Johnny Hartman, but such is life: You can’t win them all!
in my thread over at P4T, i have proven absolute conclusively and totally beyond the shadow of the smallest of doubt, that we, all of human kind, survive death. This is attested by the fact that on a moderate size forum like P4T, the thread has now received over 57000 clicks without so much as a murmur of discontent. Not one adverse critique from anyone, nor any dispute, dissension or squabble. Nothing. And yet the tally keeps rising day by day.
“Silence is consent”.
So why not help spread the word? When humans learn that they don’t actually kill anyone, they’ll soon realize the total absurdity and futility of participating in mindless warfare of any kind, and soon they will have no desire to own any kind of gun or weapon anymore. What would be the point – for heavens sake??
Cheers
My understanding is that the video was posted in error in the first place. If it is relevant to this thread then it can be posted again.
The video was posted in error.
It has no connection to the thread, unless one wishes to change the issues of the thread to the woowoo world of spiritual masters of light and theological claptimonium that will spread the popes of nembernod aghast in wanking wooglenerds here to and fore or maybe four but not for sure. And what ever the fluck O’Timbereena doth bloink and bloother on about with a whine anda shout.
\\][//
(1.) As stated elsewhere, from day one, the two handguns (“pistols”), were immediately identified – both to type of weapon (handguns) and manufacturer. Since the positive ID of the pistols has remained essentially unaltered from day-one, this seems to indicate that the individual(s) who initially ID’ed those handguns had to see them first-hand (literally). This begs a question;… Why would the investigator(s) who initially ID’ed the pistols, EXCLUDE the glaring presents of a “rife”, on or around the alleged shooter when the handguns were ID’ed?
(2.) Upon entering a crime scene littered with “hundreds” of spent shell casings (as was later reported), any crime scene investigator worth his pay would immediately notice the difference between pistol brass and “223″ rifle brass – the two are distinctly different in both physical size and shape… and easily differentiated 20 feet away.
(3.) Adam allegedly shot himself… with a handgun.
All of these observations seem to suggest, that no “rifle” was
discovered in the school building immediately following the shooting. So where was this ‘223 Bushmaster’ (allegedly registered to Nancy Lanza) when the shooting occurred? …
From CNN’s December 14 2012 timeline http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?iref=allsearch (which has since been deleted – but not before I managed to grab a few copies)
11:34 a.m. ET – Two “pistols” ID’ed and recovered from the dead suspect (in the school) – a Glock, and a Sig Sauer.
2:20 p.m. ET – Nancy Lanza’s home secured by law enforcement.
3:54 p.m. ET – First mention of an assault rifle (.223 Bushmaster)
Note: The very first mention of the Bushmaster ‘assault’ rifle, was approximately 1 hr 34 min AFTER securing Nancy Lanza’s home.
Good point Eugenek,
“The very first mention of the Bushmaster ‘assault’ rifle, was approximately 1 hr 34 min AFTER securing Nancy Lanza’s home.”
One wonders if Nancy was still alive until her home was “secured” by the “authorities”.
Belief that the “authorities” are acting good faith is the most grave error the people of this nation could ever make.
\\][//
I’d have to dig back but on COTO, one of the commenters unearthed an allegation that one of the big charities put out a pledge for donations for the victims of Sandy Hook 2 days before the event. Did I see that right?
I’d like to be able jump into this discussion with some brief comments. I agree with different people about different points. On the question of civility I agree largely with Adam Syed that emotionally charged comments and words can have the effect of cutting off communication (the use of the word “pathetic” is rarely helpful). And I don’t agree with HR that anything that has expressed here can be considered “dangerous.”
On some of the substance, however, I find much more common ground with HR. I agree that a government that can “lawfully” imprison and even kill anyone it wants whenever it wants is illegitimate and tyrannical.
And on Sandy Hook, I tend to agree with HR, Adam Ruff and Adam Syed. I do not see the issue to way James and Painter do.
I think there are so many reasons to doubt the official story and to suspect an active cover-up (possibly of a false flag operation) that to discount this possibility based on questioning what the government would have to gain is off the mark (this approach is used against us with respect to 9/11: “Why would they do it? Why would they kill all those people? How could they keep it secret? Etc.)
We need to keep the focus on the facts, and the facts point to deception. Personally, I don’t believe Adam Lanza fired any shots at all, just as I don’t believe James Holmes did in Aurora. I’m excited that so many are working to investigate this event and to do the job that the authorities and the professional journalists should be doing.
Thank you for your advice Craig,
On that note I graciously take back my use of the word “pathetic” and replace it with “I think it is really sad.”
But I do take your meaning deeper than that and will try to be a bit more cordial in my responses.
Although I do take exception to the idea that certain unfounded opinions on our rights to liberty are not Dangerous. They are indeed Dangerous – especially when so widely held by the ignorant masses of the people. And even more dangerous when expressed by those who should know better.
\\][//
I would draw a distinction between an individual opinion being dangerous and the general opinions of the population being so. I was told by a friend some time ago that my views on 9/11 truth are dangerous. I took exception to that although I wasn’t surprised to hear it.
So I don’t think James’s or Painter’s views are dangerous in and of themselves. But I believe collective opinions certainly can be. If many people express the opinion that their government is democratic and always has benign motives, for example, this would clearly be a dangerous state of affairs. And it is.
I take your points Craig,
And I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am not in a state of “out of control anger” here, why would I be?
I am not pissed off at anything…I just cuss like a sailor, Lol…no I am perfectly satisfied with the way the thread is going. I think it is most obvious that my detractors don’t know what they are talking about. I am just highlighting that in my replies here.
\\][//
Rogue Willy, I am not claiming that your allegation is not true, though I tend to doubt it. One reason is that you have never substantiated it with any known evidence that the act itself was a false flag event. THAT’S all I’m asking you to do.
By the way, you’re missing a great football game. Therefore, I have a theory that you’re being paid to do this. I don’t have any evidence of that, of course. But, that doesn’t really matter, does it? And Thomas Jefferson spoke pretty clearly when he said, “The earth belongs always to the living generation.” How could you possibly misinterpret that, or disagree with him, for that matter? Do you think Jefferson would have been content living completely under the rule of laws made in the 1500s, more than two centuries before him? But you would be?
Rogue Willy, You’ve never once provided a shred of evidence to substantiate your empty theory, so I must sadly conclude that — as far as I’m concerned, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your non-response to the request any knowledgeable person would make for you to put up or shut up unfortunately says it all. Enjoy what are apparently your fantasies, along with your toy box.
I hate TV Hufferd, and I find sports on television a boring waste of time.
I already explained how your interpretation of Jefferson does not comport with his clearly articulated principles of Liberty…and as I have said before, I am finding this continuing dialog with you as a waste of time. You don’t know anything about the Constitution and you know less about the principles of Liberty.
Go watch TV, I have had enough of you.
\\][//
Oh but United Way has that crystal ball thingy that they do around the goats head and the voice of Myron speaks through the assholes of seven virgin sheep dips {rare in those parts} and the floating notes of harmony did speak of harm to wee little ones that were on the waiting list as party toys for the white house…and two whole days prior is really cutting it close – they usually know these things months in advance do to unnamed sorcerers from Tim’s buck two that loves slam dancing with locomotives to the beat of Tom Hartman and the Fartbreakers.
Allegories and allegators and agitators from higher learning don’t know the difference between a crocodile and a peccadillo or a stubbed toe from a wet fellatio. Oh yes, the bell tolls for thee and the crypt picked three.
Of course the Tao master disagrees and says “Like is not”…but you and I we’ve been through that before and found it such a bore to bear lightning to the thrones of academiac ponderosa’s through the hoses of la rosa and disjointed pop beads with the logos of all the top brands stamped onto their underbellies like the sign of the beast.
Welcome to the feast and don’t forget to crease the pastor on the way to the wood chipper.
PS
It really was a cockroach you know.
\\][//
Hi Craig Mckee, you write:
[quote]
On some of the substance, however, I find much more common ground with HR. I agree that a government that can “lawfully” imprison and even kill anyone it wants whenever it wants is illegitimate and tyrannical.
[/quote]
I cannot in all honesty recall any poster here being in agreement with a government who can ‘lawfully imprison and even kill anyone it wants whenever it wants …..’!!
It sounds like you’re in fact insinuating that some person here are, so if i have missed this, could you please tell us who you have in mind?
[quote]
And on Sandy Hook, I tend to agree with HR, Adam Ruff and Adam Syed. I do not see the issue to way James and Painter do.
[/quote]
Why not? Things have moved on in other forums. They’re now concentrating on the ‘gas pipelines’ and the private streets not available for scrutiny on Goggle Earth, together with the privately owned land in the neighbourhood bought corporately, as well as the strange occurrences that happened there back in 2009 – 2010!
And of course not to forget ‘Veritables’ little eerie video above, “I’m sorry governor, WHAT DID YOU SAY??” – and his very good “Crossroad” video above that one – which indeed everybody should watch. Thanks Veritable!
Things are developing in strange and weird directions, and i think it would be wise to curb ones opinions and assumptions for a while, until much more information comes to light.
Cheers
RH, How is it that you own this site? It’s the only site, it seems, where extreme ideologue theories, not backed up by any evidence, are not only given a free pass, but actually cheered. I think you’re being paid to dominate here 16 hours a day. No proof or evidence of that, but that doesn’t seem to slow down other wild or paranoid claims here.
“paid to dominate”–Huffer?
I dominate you through superior reasoning and rhetorical skill. This is why you whine.
This is because the academiac brainwashed commie mind is seated in a fragmented and compartmentalized epistemology. As such the illogic and disproportion shows readily to any capable of critical thought.
>”It’s the only site, it seems, where extreme ideologue theories…”–Hufferd
I should be highly insulted by your remarks if I were the owner-manager of this blog. You insinuate that Craig hasn’t the intelligence to remain free and in charge of his own affairs here. You intimate that he is being played by some agenteur of the system.
I need not make excuses for my superior argumentation skills to some half baked pseudo-intellect such as yours, nor as to why my time is my own to do with as I please.
You strike out from your own frustration at not being able to make sufficient argument here, and blame it on everyone and everything else but your own lack of talent and intelligence.
\\][//
So let’s see what we have here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tM5ZdO-IgEE#t=1023s
\\][//
Yup, take your place in the peaceful happy world of Stepford, where life is a bowl of plastic cherries.
“Howdy neighbor!”
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/national-life-without-guns-is-a-beautiful-thing-isnt-it/
\\][//
As to my assertions that the federal “government” is ultra vires and utterly illegitamit,
here is another perspective on that same matter:
“Extermination of The Truth”: In America Law No Longer Exists
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts — Global Research, February 01, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/extermination-of-the-truth-in-america-law-no-longer-exists/5321365
\\][//
Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
Some here may recall the controversy created when The former national director of the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden espoused a unique reading of the 4th Amendment when defending the use of unwarranted wire taps and data collection on American citizens in the “war on terror”.
The classic meaning to that amendment rested on the charge that, ” no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..” – that being the restrictive charge governing the authorities limits on search and seizures and what a violation of such a charge entails.
Hayden dismissed that “probable cause” was the keystone to the amendment and insisted that what entailed an “unreasonable search” was the key issue in the amendment. From whence does this curious departure from the heritage interpretation arrive? Etzioni…
“I devoted a whole book to the limits of privacy, and I am among those who hold that Sept. 11, 2001, changed what constitutes a “reasonable” search.”~Etzioni; referring to his book,The Limits of Privacy and The Spirit of Community:The Reinvention of American Society
Rebuilding a “new world order” requires curtailing our “much-cherished sovereignty” and “amending our Constitution.”
Here is the exchange with Hayden:
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American’s right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use —
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually — the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the —
GEN. HAYDEN: That’s what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
. . . . . .
\\][//
If you hate big government – consider trying none at all.
Because our country’s government and laws have become so oppressive – you should know that there is an alternative. It’s a Utopia where big government, taxes and gun control laws don’t exist. And you’ll have total freedom from Obamacare.
You can walk down the middle of the street, armed to the teeth, and have the freedom to keep every cent you earn. This place is known as Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.
Good luck.
Painter on FEBRUARY 6, 2013 – 12:05 AM, says:
“If you hate big government – consider trying none at all.”
I’m sorry Painter, but your extremist “government or no government” choice is the very type of absurd argumentation that draws the heat to you. You cannot hope to continue to make preposterous propositions without reasonable, reprimand.
In the very first place, those who have argued for the 2nd Amendment are the ones here who defend the law, because we defend the basis for all law, and for all legitimate authority of government; the Constitution. Concurrent with this point is that you do not recognize the tyranny sitting right on your head here that is do to the very fact that that Constitution has been disparaged in toto by what you continue to ignorantly refer to as ‘the government’.
It is those your despise here that are calling for a return to legitimate law.
The second point to be addressed here is the situation in Somalia that you find so deplorable. This situation is the very result of the “government” you give faith to here. The madness in all of these areas where Western Empire has had a hand in is the result of interference and manipulations of the same powers you would look to for leadership.
The Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria in fact the entire Middle East is on fire, in embers or smoldering – all of it due to neocolonial intervention, which is now spreading into northern Africa began with the distruction of Lybia in the newest round of NATO’s diabolical agenda, which is the same as the US foreign policy agenda.
It can only be your ignorance of real history, both world history and American history that frames your ludicrous arguments here. You are obviously a brainwashed automaton regurgitating scripts you have had programmed into your head by the Public Relations Regime. You are lost in the enchantment of a false paradigm. This is very very sad, it is in fact tragedy for the majority of TVZombies that make up this pathological society.
\\][//
HR, Why don’t you just reflexively go out of your way not to only answer, but insult everyone who ever disagrees with you in any way or tries to pose something for you to think about? Her point is that Somalia is lawless, and if you want to disarm our government so that it is blocked from governing — as you clearly do on killer guns — then, there(in Somalia) is your example of such an anarchical system as you’re advocating because you’re now in the small minority of those Americans who now disagree with what the leaders of the government are posing as possible remedies on this issue.Now, I’m braced for a wild barage of crap from you in retaliation for this hated opposing message, in exercising my First Amendment rights! (And there’s a reason why the First Amendment is First and primary).
Craig please delete the duplicate of this post way up the page since it was meant to be at the end. Thanks.
Here is a guy from Newtown I support and agree with 100%. The only thing I would add to what he said is the following: If security at the Sandy Hook school were armed could they have stopped the killings? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they would have had a chance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpYHzWiU8s&list=FLNDpfAnSfgEUaqmio40nuBQ
Authored and published over a decade prior to the Sandy Hook Incident. Please note Chapter 12 (below)…
Milton William “Bill” Cooper (May 6, 1943 – November 5, 2001)
“227. Chapter Twelve The Secret Government • 225 programs were put into place to create a dependent, nonworking element in our society. The government then began to remove these programs to force people into a criminal class that did not exist in the 50s and 60s. The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the anti-gun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly.The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.
Authors Note: I have found that these events have indeed happened all over the country. In every instance that I have investigated — the incident at the womens school in Canada, the shopping center incident in Canada, the Stockton, California, massacre, and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane — the shooters were all ex-mental patients or were current mental patients who were ALL ON THE DRUG PROZAC! This drug, when taken in certain doses, increases the serotonin level in the patient, causing extreme violence. Couple that with a post-hypnotic suggestion or control through an electronic brain implant or microwave or E.L.F. intrusion and you get mass murder, ending in every case with the suicide of the perpetrator. Exhume the bodies of the murderers and check for a brain implant. I think you are going to be surprised.In every case the name of the murderers doctor or mental treatment facility has been withheld. I believe we will be able to establish intelligence-com-munity connections and/or connections to known CIA experimental mind-control programs when we finally discover who these doctors of death really are. Due to the wave of crime sweeping the nation, the media will convince the American people that a state of anarchy exists within the major cities.They are now building their case almost nightly on TV and daily in the newspapers. When public opinion has been won to this idea, they intend to state that a terrorist group armed with a nuclear weapon has entered the United States and that they plan to detonate this device in one of our cities.(This is now being set up by the crisis in the Middle East.) The Government will then suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. The secret alien army of implanted humans and all dissidents, which translates into anyone they choose, will be rounded up and placed in the one-mile-square concentration camps which already exist. Are the people whom they in-tend to place in these concentration camps destined to make up there ported “batch consignments” of slave labor needed by the space colonies? The media — radio, TV, newspapers, and computer networks — will”
Video referenced at:….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCc_43fJMMo
While I enjoy feisty exchanges as much as the next person, this discussion is feeling a lot more like a personal spat than a debate of late (despite the important ideas being discussed). How about easing off on the insults and keeping the emphasis on the substance?
Good idea! I’m just responding, and haven’t seen any more about the announced subject in a long time — from anywhere, frankly. I’d like to know if there are any new aspects or any evidence of what was alleged.
As per the issue of “statutes” and “common law” Hufferd,
I am familiar with the evolution of law from Hammurabi, to Roman Bologna school statutory authorship, to cannon law, and onto the English common law based in the Magna Carta and it’s jewel Habeas Corpus.
But this evolutionary heritage of law is reset, by a common law constitution which becomes supreme to all law. It is built of all law and expresses them by authority of it’s supremacy.
It then becomes true that this highest of laws cannot be altered by simple legislation, which is in fact new statutory law. The only mechanism for altering the Constitution is by amendment, which is detailed within the document on proper procedure to lawfully attain that amendment.
\\][//
The Constitution cannot be altered by simple legislation (statutes), but the body of laws obviously can be, and is all the time. As everyone else knows.
Despite the flaming debate here, here’s a little 5 minute video that I’m sure many here would like but no doubt the detractors here would call bull roar. You be the judge.
http://youtu.be/N1fiubmOqH4
Mr. Hufferd wrote with respect to the word “Socialism”:
Mr. Rogue responded:
I was able to learn the context (“Socialism”), because I read what came in via email, whereby WordPress adds information about what is being responded to and from whom.
Unfortunately, Mr. Rogue missed the context from having read it here in the forum, because Mr. McKee’s blog is being messed with (I think). Although each comment has a “Reply” link for the purposes of nesting (up to 3 levels according to Mr. McKee’s settings,) nesting no longer seems to work in this thread, particular this far down. For that matter, sequential placement is a bit messed up as well.
[I contend that Mr. McKee’s blog is being messed with in other ways. Granted, some of this may be decisions made by the designer of the template that Mr. McKee chose. One messing-with is that the light blue background color disappears for me on FireFox at about “Page Down #37”, being replaced by the darker purple overall background color and making the text significantly harder to read. Another messing-with is that the direct-URLs to a comment are no longer exposed (but are available if you know where to look in the source HTML.)]
On to other matters.
I made two assertions in the same sentence about Mr. Rogue. The first was based on my experience with Mr. Rogue that he occasionally misconstrues the words of others. Because I was being kind to the forum, I did not provide links. Despite the fact that Mr. Rogue ~KNOWS~ my linking ability, he taunts:
Okay, I’ve got more, but here are just three [9/11 RABBIT-HOLE WARNING!!!]:
– How much more shit are you going to allow this shitheaded clown Señor stir-up? (2012-11-21)
– Chumming the waters (2012-10-28)
– “Fizzling” is a bullshit term? (2012-03-14)
The second assertion I made was that Mr. Rogue finds flame wars irresistible. To which Mr. Rogue reinforces:
Even the enemies of 007 call him respectfully “Mr. Bond.” Mr. Rogue should become more familiar with such “Mother Hubbard nanny-speak,” for it is the language that public officials, police officers, judges, congress, and presidents expect. Behold the power of such “glamour yammer!” Unlike “Anglo-Saxon” slurs, it won’t get you banned from a forum, and is such an awesome tool to help a writer stay on topic. To call it “effusive and offensive”? Another misconstrue, Mr. Rogue, to prove my first assertion, I see.
I don’t have to pay full attention to Constitutional arguments to spot instances where Mr. Rogue lost a respectful tone, veered close or into “Anglo-Saxon” slurs, and exceeded the posting count of others in order to dominate.
FTR, I question the legitimacy of those in power based on how far they’ve strayed from the Constitution and how they’ve been corrupted by money to do the bidding of corporations.
Now back to the subject.
Sandy Hook Revisited
It seems to be that some disagreement exists whether we can prove that Sandy Hook was a false-flag Psy-Op. The first video is a start. Rather than embed these videos and make your browsers run & load slow, I’ve provided links instead.
– Full Scale Event (FSE), and “everyone must sign in.”
– Photo Journalist gets harassed
– Sandy Hook Yellow jacket kid walking in circles
Here’s an article of interest.
Sandy Hook: Law Enforcement Officials Now Admit Possibility of Multiple Shooters -Intelhub via Pakalert Press
The above came mostly from Mr. Rogue’s home COTO court, whose top-level article is worthy of serious consideration.
Sandy Hook Was Missing Kids Alright!
//
Senor El, haven’t you caught on by now that when Rogu has no effective answer, he simply evades and slithers away?
The Founders wrote law that was reasonable and just – they wrote laws that were better than themselves, in hopes that such laws would lead to a people better than themselves. Many were slaveholders, yes. And they recognized that their core principles were insulted by such an institution that they inherited: Because they recognized and held such truths to be self evident; that all men are born equal in their right to Liberty.
They were flawed human beings as we all are. That they were unwilling to face financial ruin, can be understood, even though hypocritical. They were men stuck in the predicament of their time, as we are stuck in the predicament of our own time. We have inherited both the principles we know are just and true, and we are encumbered by a system that rejects those principles.
The hour is late. It is time to embrace those principles, for the powers against them are great, and if these principles are not defended and reestablished now…it will likely be never.
\\][//
I am not so afraid of my government that I think that private individuals should have the right to own semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clip magazines.
We should be learning nonviolent ways to fight and resolve disputes and stop sounding like cowboys in an old wild west movie.
The only people in our society that should have access to semi-automatic and assault style weapons with large ammunition clips above 10 rounds are the members of law enforcement, the military and TV/Hollywood props departments for shows and movies.
We need better screening and treatment for people with mental health problems. Everyone who wants to own a firearm should have a background check, no matter where they purchase it from. They should be required to have training on how to use it. And that is the type of gun safety legislation and regulations that we should support.
You all sound so absolutist in your defense of 2nd Amendment rights and your opposition of any regulation of firearms.
But if you are a sportsman or enjoy target shooting, why do you need a semi-automatic firearm? The ONLY purpose of semi-automatic and automatic weapons with large ammo magazines is to kill other human beings ~ so why should they not be regulated? After all, so many of us – and our children – are being killed.
Arming teachers, private security guards or placing more police at our schools to guard our children is not the solution to our violent society. (Maybe we should put a teacher in every gun shop )
I don’t want to live in a world of unregulated assault weapons. Somehow you all seem so numb to the amount of violence you are willing to tolerate, accept and inflict on the rest of us.
We need to teach better ways for resolving conflicts. We need to remove the underlining issues that cause people to resort to violence – like – hunger, poverty, lack of jobs that pay a living wage, oppression, discrimination, racism and intolerance of people who look, dress or practice a different religion or no religion.
How can you be against gun safety laws? Nobody has ever said that they will take away your hunting and sport guns. There are real threats in this world – that that sure isn’t one of them.
It is insanity to believe that you can defend yourself from a big bad scary government and somehow “outshoot” someone in the Police or Military. And if you do manage to shoot a cop or a soldier, I suspect that your freedom and/or your life would over rather quickly.
This entire Sandy Hook Conspiracy is fact free and delusional. NONE of you have shown any compassion whatsoever for those that were killed in Newtown. Shame on you for using this as an excuse to rally 2nd amendment supporters.
Why is my post of Feb 8th showing up in the general timeline of Feb 3?
Sometimes WordPress has a mind of its own. This thread has had a few problems of this sort. I suggest you make a slight change to the comment (to avoid being flagged as a duplicate) and the submit again.
Craig,
Here is a fix – just disable threaded comments…and they will most likely resort themselves back into the proper order by date and time – with the most recent at the bottom.
Or
Leave it like it is if it doesn’t bother you as much as it does me.
All Best,
Painter
Hufferd – FEBRUARY 8, 2013 – 11:03 PM
His entire post is hallucinatory nonsense. All of it, psychobabble.
>”You confuse (me thinks deliberately) constitutionality with the people’s will..”~Hufferd
“popular will”? What you mean is the manufactured will of the indoctrinated herd.
. . .
>Your view puts you at one extreme end of the spectrum,”~Hufferd
By what yard stick do you measure? It cannot be the one articulated in the Constitution, that text is clear.
By the end of you post here Hoofer, you might as well ask if James Madison thinks that Bridget Bardo is sexy. You are so obviously part of that “popular will” you speak of – the manufactured brainwashed “will” of the common TVZombie.
\\[|]//
It Has Happened Here in America: The Police State is Real
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts – Global Research, February 07, 2013
The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States.
9/11 was used to create an open-ended “war on terror” and a police state. It is extraordinary that so many Americans believe that “it can’t happen here” when it already has.
We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state:
“In America the collapse of law has gone beyond corrupt prosecutors and their concocted false prosecutions. Unless it needs or desires a show trial, a police state does not need prosecutors and courts. By producing legal memos that the president can both throw people into prison without a trial and execute them without a trial simply by stating that some official in the executive branch thinks the person has a possible or potential connection to terrorism, tyranny’s friends in the Justice (sic) Department have dispensed with the need for courts, prosecutors and trials.The Bush/Obama regime has made the executive branch judge, juror, and executioner. All that is needed is an unproven assertion by some executive branch official. Here we have the epitome of evil.
Evidence is no longer required for the president of the US to imprison people for life or to deprive them of their life. A secret Justice Department memo has been leaked to NBC News that reveals the tyrannical reasoning that authorizes the executive branch to execute American citizens on the basis of belief alone without the requirement of evidence that they are terrorists or associated with terrorists.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/it-has-happened-here-in-america-the-police-state-is-real/5322223
\\][//
True and noble. But it’s not about nor proves nothing about Sandy Hook.
Is Gabby Giffords the lady who made that impassioned speech last week on gun control the same Gabby Giffords who was “shot” on Jan 8 2011?
Yes, though she’ll never be the same woman.
Socrates, I don’t know your comment showed up here instead of at the bottom. This thread has had many such problems.
James Hufferd
Do you think Gabby Giffords wrote the words that she spoke when making her plea that something has to be done to introduce tighter gun laws?
Her words and the way she spoke them and the way she was able to connect powerfully with her audience and with me makes me wonder if the brain injury she apparently received was somewhat exaggerated in her delivery.
James Hufferd
Her husband is an astronaut I wonder if he has told her either before or after her injury that NASA never went to the moon?
Craig
Thanks for your feedback, hope WordPress look into it.
PS: You mentioned two weeks ago that I had a post that was waiting for some kind of amendment.
I want to say that I only posted one comment which made it onto the blog and I didn’t post any comments that were not accepted.
I know of no way to know with certainty about those apparently unbased speculations. What she said sounded like what she would say, even if someone else could conceivably have worded it. I imagine that the wording, whether hers or someone elses, was discussed beforehand, and I feel certain, having observed her, that she wouldn’t have spoken words that didn’t reflect her own sentiments, regardless. And why would she possibly think anything different than what she said?
Socrates,
You’re right, the comment I was thinking of was one that I did approve. You asked about planes hitting the towers at the end of it, and HR responded. I held his back because I wanted to avoid having the discussion go into the no planes issue, which has been examined on a number of other threads.
Majority of Americans Say Federal Government Threatens Freedom
Washington’s Blog, Feb 5, 2013
For years, “conservative” pollsters have said that Americans are furious at the government:
Rasmussen noted in 2010 that only a small minority of the American people think that the government has the consent of the governed, and that the sentiment was “pre-revolutionary”
Gallup noted in 2011 that a higher percentage of American liked King George during the colonial days than currently like Congress
And last year, Gallup noted that trust was plummeting in virtually all institutions
Liberals may be tempted to think that this is a slanted perspective. But non-partisan and liberal pollsters are saying the same thing:
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from 2011 found that 76% of Americans believe that the country’s current financial and political structures favor the rich over the rest of the country
The Washington Post reported in 2011 that Congress was less popular than communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill or Nixon during Watergate
Public Policy Polling added last month that Congress is also less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesman and Genghis Khan
And the liberal Pew Charitable Trusts noted last week that – for the first time – a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.
In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
***
The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government.
***
Majorities across all partisan and demographic groups express little or no trust in government.
Obviously, Democrats are currently more trusting in government than Republicans.
\\][//
The Founders make the Constitution, by words they wrote in Article VI § 2, “the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Goodell, supra, pp 575-576; Spooner, supra, p 270; and Shaw, supra, p 1. Remember that, the Constitution is supreme.
“As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.” Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US (9 Wheat) 1, 188; 6 L Ed 23, 68 (1824) (stating a “rule of construction of constitutional provisions”).
“The [effect of the Constitution is] to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638; 63 S Ct 1178; 87 L Ed 1628 (1943). See also like result in Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; 116 S Ct 1620; 134 L Ed 2d 855 (1996).
. . . . .
These clearly stated principles are no less applicable to the inalienable right to keep and bear arms as protected in the 2nd Amendment, than any other right to Liberty.
\\][//
Adam Syed wrote “People are beginning to question “official stories” right from the get-go. They aren’t waiting 5 or 20 years to do so. I regard this as a success of the 9/11 truth movement.”
Absolutely, and I think Jesse Ventura is wrong when he says “I don’t see government hands at work mainly because they would have covered their tracks better. We can’t expect them to pull off …elaborately planned hoaxes while at the same time leaving behind so many easy “smoking guns” for us to find.” Looking back at 9/11, it hardly went off without a hitch. There are plenty of smoking guns surrounding that event once you open your eyes and get over the false belief that the government would/could never commit such an act.
As to Sandy Hook being a false flag operation let us consider the following item as possible evidence:
Why is Adam Lanza listed in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) as having died the day before the Sandy Hook shooting? The other victims including Adams mother are listed as dying on the correct day, the 14th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX7cBXdYKMo
Rogu, Now you’re talking! If that is actually true (and it must be verified that it wasn’t just due to a transcription error in an entry undoubtedly made sometime after that date), the next question would be, are those entries annotated with the source of the information? There’s, finally, a shred of possible evidence to be pursued.in an unbiased attempt to determine if Sandy Hook might have been a false-flag op.
Some people need to give their ego a rest
The wise will of course be perfectly aware that we should never repeat the past, but instead learn from it, for in this way to create a much better world in the future.
Please permit me therefore with this continuation from my previous posts of February 3, and February 13.
Here then are more wisdom from the Transcendental World:
“…….
“I speak unto you who are the rulers of the many nations, whether you be rulers by inheritance or election, and whichever title you may bear. Hear me, for I speak unto you all!
Make it your common goal that each of you shall become the best and most worthy person of your nation. Demand much of yourselves, that you may demand much of others. Be beyond reproach in your dealings, that all may respect, honour and love you. Choose your counsellors with great care and wisdom, and choose them from among those who are unselfish, truthful, wise and just. Protect the weak, the poor and the oppressed. Be unselfish in your care for the welfare of the nations and the peoples. Never act against that which your conscience tells you to be truth and justice.
Do not gain dominion over the realms of others by force or by cunning, and never compel the people of other nations to submit in humility to your rule; for all this is of the evil!
Be understanding and patient toward the people whose native countries have been seized by your forefathers, by your predecessors or by yourselves. Seek to rectify and to assuage some of the injustice that has been brought upon those who have been compelled by force and through hatred and envy to live under foreign rule, and who against their will have been separated from those states to which they rightfully belong.
Be as brethren toward one another. With good will abolish all strife and dispute, and never disturb the peace which prevails among the realms and the nations.
Yea, truly I say unto you: be you the first to establish an enduring, brotherly concord; and pray unto our Father to bless you and the pact which you agree upon, that you and your successors may be able to keep the promises that you have given one another. Yea, pray unto our Father to bless you, that you and those who come after you may never, never again break the peace upon the Earth!
I speak unto you who are the givers of laws, unto you who in numerous ways take part in
the various kinds of governance in the nations and the states. Hear me, for I speak unto you all!
Make it your common goal fully and with all your might to serve the country and the people to which you belong. Prepare your laws as though you yourselves should be judged by each and every statute, for then will your laws be just.
Do not by guile or with deceit force yourselves into high positions that are not rightfully yours and which you cannot properly fill. Be truthful to the utmost and be sincere in all your speech. Never act against your conscience, indeed, never act upon selfish thoughts of personal gain! Cease all your disgraceful strife and quarrelling. Never hurl bitter or hateful words against those who share not your beliefs. Do not besmirch the name and honour of your adversaries by false accusations, by untrue and wicked slander. Be meek toward one another. Go to meet one another, seek to work in mutual peace and understanding, that you may best further the interests of the nations and the peoples.
Abolish all condemning unto death; for no human being has the right to take the life of another, no matter how many crimes have been committed. Do not prepare laws that compel your brethren to murder and to slay one another in warfare; for all this is of the evil! Let all bearing of arms be of the free will, until all the nations and lands upon the Earth are united in a lasting, unbreakable pact of peace.
Give proper care unto the poor, unto the sick and to the wretched of all ages – men as well as women – unto all abandoned wives, unto all needy widows and unto all orphans among you. For I say unto you: however vast your nation may be, there shall not be one single human being in distress – man, woman or child – who must beg for their daily bread. Nor must anyone able and willing to labour drift about without home and without work. Therefore, provide shelter, food, clothing and work without delay for all who cannot obtain these for themselves.
Support not and help not in any manner by which it becomes demeaning charity, but in such manner that those who receive the help and support from your society can with gladness and gratitude accept the help that is offered them.
Yea, truly, I say unto you: your obligations are many, and your responsibility is great; I ask you therefore carefully to consider that which I have said unto you. For you shall know that if out of selfishness or faintness of heart you give not care unto the poor, unto the suffering and to the unfortunate, then shall you surely taste the want and misery of the homeless and the poor in your coming lives upon the Earth until you have learnt to take pity on your unfortunate fellow human beings.
Pray unto our Father to open your eyes, that you may see the truth of my words. Pray unto our Father to sustain and to guide you; for is He with you, then shall your laws surely be fully just.
…….”
As so many before, let me also here quote Schopenhauer:
“All Truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
And:
“Change alone is Eternal, Perpetual, Immortal.”
Cheers
This does have an indirect relation to what we’re talking about, but I’d rather have your personal analysis (with a clear connection to the subjects this blog deals with) rather than just quoting long passage.
I hope Sandy Hook people should condemn the gunman, just like Nikita Khrushchev condemning the father of Lana Peters.
Lauren Rousseau and the entire class (save one student) was shot dead and resembles a lot like the Romanov shootings!
Romanov shooting was ordered by Lenin and the Sandy Hook was shot by Lanza. Both Lenin and Lanza was born on April 22!
And maybe it’s significant that Lauren Rousseau shares a name with Jean-Jacques Rousseau?
Newtown World Order Religion
By Professor James Tracy
This is one to read and ponder…and ponder some more.
There is some very good commentary by readers as well.
http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/04/14/newtown-world-order-religion/
If I am not mistaken, Dr. John Woodall actually wrote several comments on the earlier thread on Sandy Hook, just after Professor Tracy had declined air time on TV…
He invited anyone who didn’t believe the official story to “come to Newtown and I will buy you a cup of coffee…”
We exchanged commentary for a few posts before he eventually faded away. His pose was one of “knowing authority” and the subtext was quite arrogant. I noticed he was very disturbed that I was “talking back to him” like I might be his equal or something as outrageous as that {grin}.
Within an hour or so another poster had ID’d him as a Psychiatrist who had schooling at Harvard. That was when Dr. Woodall lost interest in further conversation on the thread.
It’s great to find out how deeply involved this character is in the whole thing. I would posit there is “inside knowledge” under his strange dual hats.
\\][//
For the Huffy’s illumination:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”~Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
wiki.monticello.org/…/Democracy_is_nothing_more_than_mob_rule
\\][//
How could they have possibly pulled off Sandy Hoax? The official story is 27 people were killed and the perpetrator committed suicide but under persistent scrutiny that story doesn’t hold up.
If there was a hoax at Sandy Hook I would take a very close look at the two relocation companies: Cartus and Prudential. In the year 2009 several homes were sold in Sandy Hook on the same day. Many residents moved away only to returned later along with some fresh new faces. Did some of them know what was about to occur? Why was there a new influx of so many new people to Sandy Hook. Cartus is in the business of relocation so they might know the answer to that question. They could be key player in the hoax along with the DHS and the UN. The logistics of an operation of that size would need the co-operation of all of them or combination there-of. There are so many ways this could have played out. There could have been injuries during the event in which case it would be considered a false flag or perhaps there were no injuries. Either way, it would have taken a vast amount of planning to accomplish.
Do you remember the Keating Five banking scandal? Charles Keating’s brother is Frank Keating. Frank Keating is President and CEO of American Bankers Association and Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/about/staff/frank-keating-0 The Bipartisan Policy Group choose who heads Realogy which is the parent company of Cartus.The Bipartisan Group chose Richard Smith to head Cartus and coincidently Daniel Keating also works for Cartus. It’s a good bet all three Keatings are related. Cartus has an office located in Danbury. Governor Malloy was a guest speaker there recently. Small world isn’t it?
If you take a closer look at some of the other names on Bipartisans board of directors (see link) you’ll find links to big banks, the military, Aspen (Carnegy group), Rockefeller. Walter Isaacson is the president and CEO of the Aspen Institute. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/about/staff/walter-isaacson-0 The Aspen Institute is largely funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, by seminar fees, and by individual donations. Its board of trustees includes leaders from politics, government, business and academia who also contribute to its support. Board members of Aspen include Madeleine Albright, Sylvia Earle, Henry Louis Gates, David Gergen, David H. Koch, Queen Noor of Jordan, and Condoleezza Rice. Walter Isaacson is President and CEO.
Mortimer Zuckerman CEO, Boston Properties, Inc. Co-Chair, BPC Cyber Security Task Force is also on the Bipartisan board of Directors. Zuckerman and Cyber Security. See all the connections? Folks, I think we are getting close now. I’ve included the links below to support this. Now do you see the scale of this? You can clearly see that there’s nothing bipartisan about the Bipartisan group. This is one powerful group of men and women. Jason Grumet President http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15web-grumet.html?ref=jasongrumet&_r=0
I also mentioned I am interested in Prudential and Prudential Relocation. They’re no angels either. They provide a lot of different services. During an investigation into Prudential Securities Incorporated it was found they defrauded investors of close to $8 BILLION, the largest fraud found by the SEC in US history to that point. The SEC charged that Prudential allowed rogue executives to cheat customers on a large scale and blithely ignored a 1986 SEC order to overhaul its internal enforcement of securities laws. In all, some 400,000 individual investors lost money on the deals.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/about/board-directors
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/realogy-ceo-richard-a-smith-appointed-bipartisan-policy-centers-newly-formed-housing-1598010.htm