Looks like Obomber is going to use today's shooting to create a constitutional crisis

[ShenLung]

Seriously, fellows, what did I just say a page or two back about MEN? The answers really arent to be found in one particular ruler instead of another; they are all flawed. To be certain I liked Ron Paul, but he was not my first choice, either. ( I rather liked Herman Cain, and how flawed was he, eh?) Whether one's preferance is for a glycerin suppository, or an oral ingestion, the emptying of the bowels is happening, either way. So much for choice, in elections.

 

We are not going to get the world we want through the actions of others.

 

(edit) this is not a call for violent action, but a plea for self responsibility and self reliance.

[Owledge]

When the Constitution was framed, slavery was still legal and women could not vote. Only white property owners could vote. Schools were segregated according to race in the South until the Civil Rights Act was passed. Blacks in the South were segregated from public buses drinking fountains and other public services.

 

Given the problems with human nature the US. passed amendments and laws to protect minorities.

 

What Ron Paul is harping about in the following video is about property rights that originally allowed one to vote. Only property owners were allowed to vote until that was changed. He is discriminating against ones that do not own property.

Your reasoning includes a severe logical fallacy. You turned things around. Being for property rights doesn't mean being for racism. There was a law that said only property owners could vote? Then that law tied into the superior property rights law, and if you want to stop the racism issue connected to property rights, then you're changing that law, not the property rights law. (Your reasoning is like saying I don't like warts, but since you got a wart on your nose, I don't like you. And warts are a health problem, so I have to get rid of you to solve the health problem.)

Ron Paul explained it in the video! He said something that is very insightful and wise: They way they tried to solve the racism problem was to forbid shop owners to not allow "negroes" in their shops. It did nothing to resolve the underlying problem, the fear-based racist behavior, but made the problem worse, by making people angry, the government telling them what to do, and they saw the people behind that, and their resentment might have been something like: "Those negroes are controlling our government now!". Good food for KKK.

 

You say I buy into propaganda - and then you buy into this Obama fake tear shit. There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Have you ever studied Spiral Dynamics? Remember what I said about levels? Republicans like Bush, McCain, and Romney are operating under Blue/Orange meme thinking. Libertarians are stuck in the Orange meme. Obama is a little higher with Green/Orange meme thinking. The goal is to get out of the first tier and get into the Second Tier. Only 2 recent presidents have exhibited any desire to enter into 2nd Tier thinking - and that is Clinton and Obama.

I'm not sure what those memes are about, maybe I'll have to look it up. The basic flaw I'm sensing here is basing that on the same twisted 'fact' basis that the corporate media spreads.

 

@ Owledge

 

Since you are trying to school us here in the U.S. why not take a look at your country. Here are a few examples.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/8347040.stm

 

http://www.spiegel.d...s-a-851972.html

 

Is not discrimination and racism outlawed in your country? I don't need to remind you about Germany's past.

Wow, after this ad hominem attack I think I don't have to try and reason with you until you make an evolutionary step. You're basically saying there's racism in Germany, so Im a racist/nazi and what I say shouldn't be taken seriously? You really need to take a step back and look at yourself and what drives you to do stuff like this.

 

By the way, "Spiegel" is part of the corporate propaganda media - to some degrees very untrustworthy. Hell, they even sometimes just copy articles from the infamously ruthless and manipulative boulevard press "Bild".

German media are part of a political correctness network, and due to the "reeducation" campaign after WWII, shame was instilled into the people and now every time you say something negative about foreigners, you are quickly labeled an antisemitist, since the Zionists love to trigger that psychological complex again and again to their own advantage. Even if you say something IN FAVOR of the jewish community that doesn't sound as they like it, same result. You really have to kiss their ass in choice of words, gesture, demeanor and tone of voice to not call their wrath upon you. (And people who are informed I don't have to tell how the Israeli government looks like it's trying hard to emulate or even surpass what Hitler did.)

Of course you don't know that, for example, Hamburg's police statistics say that in 2012 there have been many times more politically-left motivated violent crimes than politically-right ones. The extreme right / neonazi scene is used as a scarecrow, a convenient enemy, and fueled by using any shoddy means against them that the government deems feasible. The government is trying again and again (and failing) to declare the NPD illegal because of anti-constitutional attitudes, while the government itself is displaying the most severe violations of law. Huge hypocrisy just like in the USA. And just like the approach the US government took in the case of racial discrimination, this is unwise if you want harmony and reconciliation as a result. But since that's not the government's aim, it makes perfect sense. All tyrants do it.

 

Out of curiosity I attended a march of leftist activists a while ago and they were very confrontational. They were really hungering for causing a crisis with the police and getting arrested and making a big fuss. They were in the same "they are our enemy, we have to fight them" mentality that always perpetuating fear and violence.

 

The BBC reports something that I remember seeing a movie about, playing in the USA, based on real events, where someone did more or less the same there. Again, the article itself mentions the problem with that approach, and you have no problem quoting something that sheds light from both sides so to speak and only see one side. What Günter Wallraff did is not scientific - it manipulates the outcome, makes it as unnatural as his fake black skin was.

 

Oh and by the way, the USA is not alone with huge deceptions and scams, like half of what the IRS does being illegal. In Germany, we have the problem that our whole Basic Law (which the government celelbrated recently for its '60 year success story') is a scam, since it was a post-war provisory means for order and designed to be replaced by a constitution freely voted for by the people, which still has not happened, and people are ignorant about the fact that it says just that IN the Basic Law. To make it very clear: The German Basic Law says that it's supposed to become invalid, to be replaced!

Germany is one of the most criminal countries in the world. Comes with material wealth I guess, or the wealth comes with the crime. Goes both ways. Remember, Germany is the 3rd biggest weapons exporter, and it also used to be a colonial empire.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Owledge

[ralis]

Your reasoning includes a severe logical fallacy. You turned things around. Being for property rights doesn't mean being for racism. There was a law that said only property owners could vote? Then that law tied into the superior property rights law, and if you want to stop the racism issue connected to property rights, then you're changing that law, not the property rights law. (Your reasoning is like saying I don't like warts, but since you got a wart on your nose, I don't like you. And warts are a health problem, so I have to get rid of you to solve the health problem.)

Ron Paul explained it in the video! He said something that is very insightful and wise: They way they tried to solve the racism problem was to forbid shop owners to not allow "negroes" in their shops. It did nothing to resolve the underlying problem, the fear-based racist behavior, but made the problem worse, by making people angry, the government telling them what to do, and they saw the people behind that, and their resentment might have been something like: "Those negroes are controlling our government now!". Good food for KKK.

 

White male property owners were only allowed to vote and were generally slave owners. That perception of blacks as slaves continued and still does in some racist minds today. Further, to allow white business persons to openly discriminate against black people in their place of business in nothing but a display of blatant authoritarianism and social Darwinism. That ideology does not afford minorities the same opportunities as white persons. No one has ever claimed that civil rights laws would change the behavior of racists. That problem is endemic to human primates. The job of governments is to create a fair social order and prevent aberrant behavior. Ron Paul is a promoter of neo-liberalism and neo-feudalism.

 

 

Wow, after this ad hominem attack I think I don't have to try and reason with you until you make an evolutionary step. You're basically saying there's racism in Germany, so Im a racist/nazi and what I say shouldn't be taken seriously? You really need to take a step back and look at yourself and what drives you to do stuff like this.

 

I did not engage in ad hominem attacks toward you. Racism exists even in your country and you know it. It exists in my country and I don't deny it!

 

 

Consider for one moment the situation in India with the gang rapes against women that were not prosecuted by law enforcement. Given the demonstrations it appears that laws will be passed and or enforced that may be on the books. Will prosecutions of rapist stop further rapes. No. Laws do not change human behavior. However, these crimes may be reduced by severe sentencing.

Edited January 4, 2013 by ralis

[ShenLung]

Racism ... hmm, yep, I must admit, I do not care for Humans. I wear one here on earth, since that is the custom, but some of their habits ... well, let's just say I find them distasteful. Not much of an appreciation for dogs, either, but that is dependent upon whether thay are the domesticated kind, or the version that exists within nature. Within nature, dogs are fine, and I can understand them ... when will Humans learn to be true to their nature?

 

Do we know right from wrong? can we be personally resposible for our OWN behaviour? This is not dependent upon some outside force, it comes from me, it comes from you. Conditioned animals or free thinking men. Choose.

[Owledge]

White male property owners were only allowed to vote and were generally slave owners. That perception of blacks as slaves continued and still does in some racist minds today. Further, to allow white business persons to openly discriminate against black people in their place of business in nothing but a display of blatant authoritarianism and social Darwinism. That ideology does not afford minorities the same opportunities as white persons. No one has ever claimed that civil rights laws would change the behavior of racists. That problem is endemic to human primates. The job of governments is to create a fair social order and prevent aberrant behavior.

When the government is causing problems, they have no right to feel just about providing solutions. You talk about authoritarianism and apparently have a flawed understanding of the term, because you connect it to the granting of more personal freedoms, when authoritarianism is when the government makes decisions for you instead of being a mere representative of the people's will. The option to amend the Constitution is protected by the principles of the Constitution. Trying to circumvent it is what the government is doing a lot. The will of the people stands against the will of the government. That is tyranny and exactly what the settlers were trying to escape from in the old world. ... They didn't do a perfect job, but they put things on a pretty good basis.

 

Ron Paul is a promoter of neo-liberalism and neo-feudalism.

Again, please get your jargon right first. Neo-liberalism is very much what Ron Paul doesn't stand for. He stands for all-encompassing liberalism, which of course, includes private business. The media focused a lot on very basic stuff in their interviews and you don't hear that much how he would solve more specific problems, but he makes enough statements to show that he's not a lobbyist for unrestrained ruthless capitalism. He says that first you have to get the basic laws followed, only then you have the justification for solving problems that might ensue.

Neo-liberalism is something that goes very much in the same direction as neo-conservatism. It's the power-corrupted version of the original. Neo-liberalism seeks to allow business to do whatever they want to do without any limitation, neo-conservatism considers imperialism and military supremacy as a time-tested value to be preserved.

And connecting Ron Paul a supporter of feudalism... you can't be serious! You really only see what you want to see, hm? He's not the rich guy getting campaign funding from banks and big corporations. He's not the one trying to take freedoms away from people. He's not the one claiming that wealthy people have more rights in society.

Of course he's not perfect, but he'd be a much better president than any we had before, because he is sincere, because he is not appearing before the people with rhetorics training using deception, empty phrases, pychological trickery and funding from criminals to win an election.

It's amazing how people are so scared of being treated with respect, but that's the power of propaganda.

 

I did not engage in ad hominem attacks toward you. Racism exists even in your country and you know it. It exists in my country and I don't deny it!

Then what WAS the point of your posting regarding that? It was very much out of context, that's why it came off the way I described it. Stating that racism exists in other countries, too, is kinda stating the obvious.

 

Consider for one moment the situation in India with the gang rapes against women that were not prosecuted by law enforcement. Given the demonstrations it appears that laws will be passed and or enforced that may be on the books. Will prosecutions of rapist stop further rapes. No. Laws do not change human behavior. However, these crimes may be reduced by severe sentencing.

Oh great, now you're equaling gang rape to a personal right. Worst comparison ever. Newsflash: Outlawing rape is not the same as passing a law that forbids business owners to decide who to allow on their property. I'm sure India dosn't have a constitution that says committing violence against other citizens is protected by personal freedom rights.

 

You will probably only begin to appreciate the high importance of the basic principles in the Constitution once they are gone. .. Or you will support those who took them away.

 

I'm curious: Who is YOUR favorite candidate for the presidency?

[Owledge]

@vortex

Very nice pictures there.

I'll watch the Gaddafi video later. I'm not sure whether Libya was a case where the overthrowal was a pro-US act, but I didn't research that case in-debth.

Could you elaborate about the pic with Ahmadinejad? When did he deny dollars for oil? Right now it's more like the other way round, with the illegal sanctions against trade and banking.

OK, NATO forces bombing Libya, Libya having a lot of oil - pretty clear what motivation is behind that - the usual. But if the rebellion was part of the Arab Spring movement, then I'm wondering about how homogenous that is in its political aims. Does the USA expect it to be easier to corrupt a government that resulted from the Arab Spring? I guess so. Surely easier than corrupting a dictator who won't allow himself to be corrupted by them.

Arab Spring might have done good in Egypt, but that doesn't apply in Iran. So I assume as usual foreign powers tweak and support movements based on their own regional interests, making the Arab Spring movement not homogenous.

I can't be sure about the claims in the video, but I can imagine it being true. After all, the USA does pretty much the same twisting and censoring of information with Cuba. Sure, every country has its problems, but focusing on the problems only and condemning them while they are worse on the own turf is hypocritical.

[Birch]

Oh, I don't think I like this lack of 'care for humans' ShenLung. Methinks such an idea carries within it many noxious seeds, the above issues pointed to by our friends being one further step along such a path. The 'racism' issue notably being supported by works of 'science' to 'prove' that different coloured humans came from elsewhere. Every human culture has an origin story. I think some people forget theirs is a story and instead take it for universal truth.

 

Anyway, my present reading of Alexandra David Neel's account of Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Bhuddist Sects suggests that the Tibetan bhuddists were themselves elitists, having classified different types of 'mental ability' to receive the 'Secret Teachings'

 

--opinion--

[Aetherous]

 

I don't know why they would paste Emilie into the family picture...but apparently they did...

[ShenLung]

Oh, I don't think I like this lack of 'care for humans' ShenLung. Methinks such an idea carries within it many noxious seeds, the above issues pointed to by our friends being one further step along such a path. The 'racism' issue notably being supported by works of 'science' to 'prove' that different coloured humans came from elsewhere. Every human culture has an origin story. I think some people forget theirs is a story and instead take it for universal truth.

 

Anyway, my present reading of Alexandra David Neel's account of Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Bhuddist Sects suggests that the Tibetan bhuddists were themselves elitists, having classified different types of 'mental ability' to receive the 'Secret Teachings'

 

--opinion--

 

People, as individuals are wonderful, bright, and beautiful. Every individual has some exceptional talents, abilities, and viewpoints that make them stand out, I believe that. People as groups loose the individual excellence, and get into some pretty ugly patterns of behaviour. The thinking that goes before such displays, of "we are superior because of x,y, or z"

is so toxic in that, not only does it lead to acts of great cruelty to others, but it limits the potential of the people who fall into such thinking.

 

While not all people believe that they are something more than just a creation of their physical selves, the idea that we are something more than animals is fairly close to universal. Yet, even holding this belief, people tend to think of themselves, and especially others in terms of the human animal. In terms of all humans having the capability to become fully realised beings, all of mankind is equal, yet it is difficult to look upon another and see that potential. I do not know if every person can go from the purely animalistic level of conciousness to being fully self realised in the course of a single lifetime. The Tibetans held (still do, I suppose) the belief that the self could be perfected over the course of many lifetimes, so the application of specific teaching methods at different levels of spiritual growth or ability makes some sense coming from a belief system that includes reincarnation. I'm not going to judge them too harshly, for I really don't know any better, myself.

[Birch]

I don't know what to say to that. It was very articulate. I looked at an article about people and crowds a while back. It had to do with instructions for police officers to avoid addressing people collectively and instead speak to individuals. Apparently, the article suggested, singling people out worked better to diffuse tension than getting a crowd offside. I can't talk about the animals and humans issue aside from finding it strange to use these terms as if they were opposed.

 

I was pondering the idea that the bhuddists could identify people by 'mental ability' when it came to their teachings and it suddenly struck me that it might not be positive at all!

 

For example, I'm a very influenceable person. It's unfortunate, but I was brought up to self-doubt on a rather consistent basis. Aside from this screwing with my self-confidence, another consequence is I'll literally entertain pretty much any idea, concept, hypothesis, whatever it is, I'll likely give it shot as a belief. Most often it doesn't hold up to much road testing but I have to be very careful:-). Especially with this quantum stuff...

 

My present personal hypothesis is that several bhuddist practices (notably the repeat questioning of one's identity) do something similar to the process I already went through. Now while I believe that's not *necessarily* a negative thing to happen to a person who has decided to embark upon it- 'unlearning' being an extremely useful thing to be able to do, there's quite some amount of risk involved re the adoption of beliefs post-unlearning. My second personal hypothesis is that at specific points in the 'unlearning' process, other beliefs can be suggested and the person, desparate to replace the worldview, having lost so much of it, will accept pretty much anything.

[joeblast]

man, sometimes I hate being right.

 

 

On Wednesday during a press conference with attorney general Eric Holder, vice president Joe Biden said president Obama is considering taking “executive action” to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

 

“The president is going to act,” said Biden. “There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

“As the president said, if you’re actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”

In other words, according to the Obama administration and the Justice Department, if trashing the Constitution saves one life, it is worth it.

 

...and of course...I dont know who was paying attention the day this all happened, but there's a lot of misinformation out there, it seems that at first the shooter had 2 handguns on him and a long gun in the car per lt vance, and he wouldnt specify what the long gun was, got asked if it was an AR and basically left it open ended.

 

now the story is that there were 4 guns, the kid had an AR on him that he shot the place up with and used the handgun on himself, and there was a shotgun in the car.

 

so it basically sounds like an AR-15 got invented right out of thin air. wouldnt surprise me in the least.

[gendao]

On Wednesday during a press conference with attorney general Eric Holder, vice president Joe Biden said president Obama is considering taking “executive action” to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

Lmao...oh that's rich.

 

Biden unashamedly makes this announcement...with the guy in charge of:

"Fast and Furious" is the name ATF assigned to a group of Phoenix, Arizona-area gun trafficking cases under Project Gunrunner that began in fall of 2009. It's the largest of several known operations in which ATF employed gunwalking, involving more than 2,000 weapons, including hundreds of AK-47 type semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber rifles. According to sources who worked directly on the case, the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's government was not fully informed of the case.

In short, Issa wants to determine if and how the Obama administration covered up its involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal.

 

Obama's executive privilege now protects those post-Feb. 4 documents from Congressional subpoena, meaning that the DOJ won't have to give Issa the documents.

Funny how quickly Obama & all his wolves in sheep's clothing have moved from covering the actual "event" to fully-exploiting it now for their political money shot - more mass control & tracking. Especially as their official narrative seems to keep falling apart at the seams with increasing independent scrutiny...

The US military is developing software that will allow it to secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

 

The CENTCOM contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details

The Sandy Hook massacre appears to have been a psy op intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by the sheer brutality of the massacre

 

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother killed the day before. Adam's body picked up by local 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. You can find this on helicopter videos.

 

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, not on fact.

More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.

Almost 130,000 attacks involved knives last year - equivalent to one every four minutes - according to the annual British Crime Survey.

This figure does not include the tens of thousands of assaults against under-16s.

The police data revealed 22,000 serious knife assaults - including 231 attempted murders - were reported to the police last year.

 

There were also almost 14,000 reported robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.

 

As the Daily Mail revealed exclusively yesterday, the forces' data, which was gathered for the first time this year, starkly illustrated how knife crime has spread beyond the major cities into the shires.

 

The British Crime Survey figure of 130,000 knife attacks is substantially higher than the police's figure. This is thought to be because many victims never report being threatened with a knife - and even assaults needing hospital treatment go unrecorded.

 

The phenomenon of 'hidden' knife crime has led senior doctors to call for new rules making it compulsory for hospitals to record knife injuries.

 

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve pointed out that the police figures showed violent crime up nearly 80 per cent since Labour came to power.

'Our porous borders have allowed too many weapons and quantities of hard drugs to simply flow into our country, fuelling violent crime.

 

'Labour have also failed to address family breakdown which does so much to set young people on to a path of crime.'

[Aetherous]

The US military is developing software that will allow it to secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

 

Since when did "America" become a few untouchable tyrants terrorizing its own citizens as well as the rest of the world?

 

That was my first thought. Then I remembered some of our history...

[Aetherous]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html

[joeblast]

Funny how quickly Obama & all his wolves in sheep's clothing have moved from covering the actual "event" to fully-exploiting it now for their political money shot - more mass control & tracking. Especially as their official narrative seems to keep falling apart at the seams with increasing independent scrutiny...

I could see one page...but like 3 or 4? United Way's donation page, created Dec 11th. Sandy Hook Victims fund page, created dec 13th.

What happened to the 2 men arrested live on tv, never heard from them or any explanation of it.

Why do you have to have a certification from FEMA to join the "crisis actors" company?

Its been mentioned the connection between these two, meds, parents testifying about the LIBOR scandal...

Why did DHS do a drill a year before in the same town...

...and someone with a police scanner picked up one asking "Is this it???"

 

At the very minimum, we have an officially doctored story,

 

at worst, we have a continuation of false flags aimed at disarming the population ahead of a Depression. (because the only reason people didnt know we would have been in one already is because of fed reserve & treasury action to keep up the facade that we're financially solvent, and any realization of what's actually going on is going to basically ensure one, unless of course we chop the government in half and give it no ability to create debt for us and spend it on government programs.)

[ShenLung]

I can't talk about the animals and humans issue aside from finding it strange to use these terms as if they were opposed.

 

 

I wouldn't call them opposed so much as them being different layers of truth. On the one hand, we have these bodies, which can be classified as animals. On the other hand, are humans just animals? If we adopt the attitude that humans are just animals, then we are left with the question of what is the implication associating with human animals? Are they dangerous animals? Logically, the answer would be a qualified yes, humans are dangerous animals. Dangerous animals require management in order to render them less dangerous, in the minds of some. Milking the venom from snakes, de-clawing cats, limiting tigers and lions to 'preserve' areas ... these sorts of things are done to make potentially dangerous animals more 'safe'. Training and conditioning of the animal and it's handlers is also a method of managing a dangerous animal.

 

The natural weapon of a serpent is it's venom, the natural weapon of a cat is it's claws and teeth. What is the natural weapon of the human? It is not guns, knives, sticks, rocks, or even the bare hand. The natural weapon of the human is intelligence. Does there not seem to be an effort being made to limit the intelligence of humans? Deliberate defects in education, introduction of mind dulling drugs, and paring down of language so that humans find it more and more difficult to communicate meaningfully, and most importantly, not communicate thoughts that are deemed dangerous by their managers? I believe that these efforts all stem from the attitude that humans are merely another type of animal, requiring management from external sources.

 

In some respects, I agree with the managers and minders, that humans can be quite dangerous. I disagree with the proposed solutions to the percieved problem. The answer is not to impose control from above, bringing humanity to heel like a beast, but to embrace the element of humanity that is more than simply animalistic, to awaken that divine spark that lies within each and every human being. All attempts to conquer the world by bringing it to it's knees have failed thus far, and from the examples of history, all such attempts will also fail in the future. Instead of bringing the world to it's knees, I would rather see the world brought to it's feet.

[Aetherous]

http://memoryholeblo...sacre-timeline/

 

From the above website...apparently someone actually did an internet check on the website of the fake interview with the principal. It was created on the 13th, the day before the massacre.

 

The internet check includes how the page appeared at first...the original info is there, from the "13th".

 

Could it have been that the check took place somewhere around the world in another time zone so that the date was different? I will need proof of that to believe it.

 

See directly here: http://cc.bingj.com/...1&w=yZ8j1YFE_Mw

Edited January 12, 2013 by turtle shell

[joeblast]

given that the time zone of the massacre is near the end of the longitudinal distribution of time zones, that being the source of the discrepancy is rather unlikely. it was already the 15th on the leading edge of time zones when it happened.

 

 

(distribution just sounded better than dispersion )

Edited January 13, 2013 by joeblast

[i am]

 

I just posted this in the "other" gun debate thread...

 

If you have time, here's a perspective of the gun debate I like.

 

[ralis]

edit

Edited January 14, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

biden: the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws

but they want more gun laws that they can arbitrarily enforce.

Holder & Obama: that executive order to explicitly withhold the admin's evidence on fast & furious isnt holding up. Time to come clean and tell us your level of involvement - but hey, that'd probably be impeachable if they came clean on it, so I'm not holding my breath.

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”

The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”

The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay.

As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt.

There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution.

The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it.

It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions.

Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege.

The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious.

In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms.

 

 

Obama's claim about 40% of gun sales being not backgrounded check appears to be another made up, out of context line of bs

 

 

By John Fund

January 17, 2013 10:01 A.M.

Of all the gun-control measures touted by President Obama on Wednesday, the one that got top billing was a dramatic tightening of background checks on gun purchasers. Obama himself said the need was urgent because “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” But before we make the most sweeping changes in federal firearms law since the 1960s, shouldn’t we at least examine the validity of that figure? It’s about as dubious as they come.

The administration is focusing on background checks in an attempt to drive a wedge between staunch anti-gun-control absolutists such as the National Rifle Association and the average gun owner. Background checks are easily the most popular proposal out there. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows the public closely divided on banning “assault weapons,” but 85 percent of those surveyed supported universal background checks. “If you look at the combination of likelihood of passage and effectiveness of curbing gun crime, universal background checks is at the sweet spot,” New York senator Chuck Schumer told reporters this week.

Most advocates of gun control believe the “loopholes” in federal law are the rule and not the exception when it comes to gun purchases. A 2011 study by the office of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed that “40 percent of guns are sold through private sellers.” His study went on to says “these sales — which take place in many venues, including gun shows and, increasingly, on the internet . . . fuel the black market for illegal guns.”

Current federal law requires anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns to get a license and have any sales go through law-enforcement background checks — whether those sales occur in a shop or in a gun show. If a gun is sold over the Internet, a background check is mandatory. As Breitbart News reported: “If a resident of Denver bought a gun from a store in Tampa, the (licensee) in Tampa would send the gun to (a licensee) in Denver. Once it arrived, the buyer would pay a fee for shipping, taxes on the gun, as well as any mark-up for services. He would also have to submit to a back-ground check just as if he had bought the gun off a shelf in Denver.” In all cases, sales are denied if the person attempting to buy a gun has a felony conviction or, in many cases, a misdemeanor conviction, or if he has a history of mental illness.

The guns that Obama, Bloomberg, and others claim escape background checks are those sold or transferred between private parties. But can that number really be 40 percent?

The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.

If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks.

Another reason for the high number is that it includes guns transferred as inheritances or as gifts from family members. Even President Obama’s background proposal excludes almost all of those transfers.

If you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through Federal Firearm Licensees and would have been subject to a background check. Only 15 percent would have been transferred without a background check.

Economist John Lott, the author of several landmark studies on the real-world impact of gun control, has concluded that if you take out transfers of guns either between FFLs or between family members, the remaining number of transfers falls to about 10 percent. Those were the numbers from two decades ago. “We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits,” he told me.

Lott says that before any universal background system is passed, flaws in the current system should be fixed. If they aren’t they could lead to “unforeseen” tragedies that would outweigh the benefits of any expanded background-check system.

Lott notes that 8 percent of background checks are initially denied, with almost all of the delays until they are finally approved taking three days or longer. When the reviews were finally finished, 94 percent of “initial delays” were dropped because they were cases of mistaken identity.

Delays are undoubtedly just an inconvenience for most people buying guns. But for a few, such as those in imminent fear of a stalker or others who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, universal-background-check laws could prevent them from defending themselves against assailants.

Lott says his research suggests that expanding background checks “might actually contribute to a slight net increase in violent crime, particularly rapes.” Before we expand background checks he suggests we focus on the real-world statistics, not Obama’s “magical” number, and recognize that criminals are seldom burdened by background checks because they buy weapons on the black market. As for gun bans, they do little to combat crime. When guns were banned in Washington, D.C., or Chicago, the rate of violent crime went up. Even in island nations such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica, murder rates went up after gun bans were put in place.

And as for background checks, even the most vigorously policed would have done nothing to stop the killers at Newtown or the theater in Aurora, Colo. Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother’s storage locker after murdering her, and Joseph Holmes’ problems with mental illness were not reported to authorities by his psychologist.

Lott says that it may well be that expanded background checks are reasonable, but only if flaws and delays with the current system are addressed and a cost/benefit analysis is conducted. As he says “passing gun-control laws may make people feel better, but they can actually prevent people from defending themselves.”

 

 

Irony about Obama mentioning Obamacare 3 or 4 times in the context of his new gun dictats

 

 

“And by the way… On health care issues going on in D.C. right now? Be wary when some kind of tie-in occurs; Because it will come up: A tie-in with guns in an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights under the guise of some new health care plan – You know that this is coming – That the two issues will somehow crop up and they’ll be tied together. So we have to be very wary on this.” ~ Governor Sarah Palin, August 1, 2009 Anchorage, Alaska

 

But then again, its starting to get scary for some of the big 3, so careful for 'distractions' as we're hit from multiple sides:

 

 

A week ago, when Wells Fargo unleashed the so far quite disappointing earnings season for commercial banks (connected hedge funds like Goldman Sachs excluded) we reported that the bank's deposits had risen to a record $176 billion over loans on its books. Today we conduct the same analysis for the other big two commercial banks: Wells Fargo and JPMorgan (we ignore Citi as it is still a partially nationalized disaster). The results are presented below, together with a rather stunning observation.

First, Wells again - deposits over loans: record $176 billion.

 

Next: Bank of America: unlike Wells, BofA is not even trying as its deposits are soaring while the loans have been declining for 6 quarters in a row. Deposits over Loans: record $221 billion.

had to remove pic, ran into limit, link for first:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/WFC%20deposits%20vs%20loans_1.jpg

Finally: JP Morgan, or the bank that started it all when the CIO blew up and made it all too clear what happens with the "Excess deposit over loans" cash. December 31 Deposits over Loans: record $460 billion.

And this is how the consolidated deposit and loan data for the Big Three banks looks: some $858 billion, or nearly half of the $2 trillion in total excess deposits over loans in the entire US commercial banking system (speaking of Too Big To Fail).

Why is all of the above important? Because as we have explained repeatedly in the past several weeks, the "excess deposit cash over loans" is nothing more or less than additional prop trading capital, that banks can use as they see fit. The traditional regulatory explanation is that the cash is to be used for safe, responsible investment. Alas, as the JPM CIO debacle taught us, said cash is used for anything but, and is in fact used to fund prop trading operations deep inside these commercial banks.

But don't take our word for it. Take the word of the Task Force charged with explaining away the 2012 CIO Losses, released yesterday.

 

JPMorgan’s businesses take in more in deposits than they make in loans and, as a result, the Firm has excess cash that must be invested to meet future liquidity needs and provide a reasonable return. The primary responsibility of CIO, working with JPMorgan’s Treasury, is to manage this excess cash. CIO is part of the Corporate sector at JPMorgan and, as of December 31, 2011, it had 428 employees, consisting of 140 traders and 288 middle and back office employees. Ms. Drew ran CIO from 2005 until May 2012 and had significant experience in CIO’s core functions.19 Until the end of her tenure, she was viewed by senior Firm management as a highly skilled manager and executive with a strong and detailed command of her business, and someone in whom they had a great deal of confidence.

 

CIO invests the bulk of JPMorgan’s excess cash in high credit quality, fixed-income securities, such as municipal bonds, whole loans, and asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, corporate securities, sovereign securities, and collateralized loan obligations. The bulk of these assets are accounted for on an available-for-sale basis (“AFS”),

although CIO also holds certain other assets that are accounted for on a mark-to-market basis

.

 

Beginning in 2007, CIO launched the Synthetic Credit Portfolio, which was generally intended to protect the Firm against adverse credit scenarios.

The Firm, like other lenders, is structurally “long” credit, including in its AFS portfolio, which means that the Firm tends to perform well when credit markets perform well and to suffer a decline in performance during a credit downturn. Through the Synthetic Credit Portfolio, CIO generally sought to establish positions that would generate revenue during adverse credit scenarios (e.g., widening of credit spreads and corporate defaults) – in short, to provide protection against structural risks inherent in the Firm’s and CIO’s long credit profile.

 

The positions in the Synthetic Credit Portfolio consisted of standardized indices (and related tranches) based on baskets of credit default swaps (“CDS”) tied to corporate debt issuers. CIO bought, among other things, credit protection on these instruments, which means that it would be entitled to payment from its counterparties whenever any company in the basket defaulted on certain payment obligations, filed for bankruptcy, or in some instances restructured its debt. In exchange for the right to receive these payments, CIO would make regular payments to its counterparties, similar to premiums on insurance policies. As described in greater detail below, the actual trading strategies employed by CIO did not involve exclusively buying protection

or always maintaining a net credit short position

(under CSW 10%);

rather, CIO traded in an array of these products, with long and short positions in different instruments.

In other words, JPM's own task force admitted the CIO was using excess cash for prop trading purposes (there is much more in the full 132 page document). This is when JPM had roughly $400 billion in excess cash over loans. JPM now has a record $460 billion and it most likely continues to invest this cash in any way it sees fit. Sadly, when asked to provide details about what the CIO is doing these days, Jamie Dimon provided no additional information.

Because if JPM was/is doing it, everyone else was/is doing it.

And you, dear savers, are the ones who money is being used by the banks to fund precisely this prop trading, which, among other factors (Fed) is what is causing the relentless stock market melt up.

 

 

and here's where it all ties in, there simply IS a limit on how fiscally irresponsible the government can be, and its not going to be pretty once it gets to the point of supply chain disruption...and that's why they're trying to outlaw as many guns as possible...how long's it going to be before there's martial law declared somewhere in the US? It basically depends on how long the charade can continue, because without ridiculous fed monetization and high frequency algorithm trading keeping the market afloat with what, 85% of trades was a high estimate I saw...your cash will soon be worth-less, if not worthless.

 

 

Crossing Through The "X Date" - What Happens After The US "Default"?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/16/2013 15:35 -0500

Call it "X Date", call it "D(elinquent/efault)-Day", call it what you will: it is simply the day past which the US government will no longer be able to rely on "extraordinary measures" to delay the day of reckoning, and will be unable to pay all its bills without recourse to additional debt. It is not the day when the US defaults, at least not defaults on its debt. It will begin "defaulting" on various financial obligations, such as not paying due bills on time and in full, but since this is something Europe's periphery has been doing for years, it is hardly catastrophic.

As a reminder, the technical definition of default is being unable to pay the interest or maturity on one's debt - for the US this is not an issue (at least not for the near term), as the revenues brought in by taxes more than cover cash interest requirements. It is, however, the day past which the US government will slowly but surely have to begin shutting down non-vital services and cut spending for non-core services, as it is forced to begin prioritizing who gets what from the remaining money. In short: it the day when America has no choice but to live within its means (no wonder the crank spending to infinity "Magic Money Tree" brigade - the same that has no idea that IRR on government "investments" is always below zero, is screaming bloody murder).

And while we have done the full analysis some 18 months ago when the US found itself in the exact same place, it is time for a refresh of precisely what the next steps are if, some time after the second half of February, there is still no debt ceiling resolution, and the "catastrophic outcome" (in the words of Tim Geithner) becomes reality.

First, as everyone knows, the US hit its debt ceiling on December 31, and has since been utilizing some $200 billion in Extraordinary Measure to stave off X Date. The exact same thing happened on May 15, 2011, when for three and a half months, until August 2, the government used the same delay tactic. Alas, this time around there is only 1 - 1.5 months in "extraordinary" dry powder time, because, as the Bipartisan Policy Center politely puts it, "February is a “bad” month for the federal government’s finances" and "Fewer measures available" (one does wonder just what month is "good" for federal finances when the US government is burning over $1 trillion a year but that's a different story).

The $200 billion in "Extraordinary Measures" are summarized as follows:

In other words, the government will basically defund yet more retirees in exchange for another IOU. And how long will this strategy go for? Not too long. As the chart below shows, the drama will end some time between February 15 and March 1, depending on inflows, and the calendarization of expenditures:

Once the $201 billion, consisting primarily of plundering the government retirement G-fund, runs out, the Treasury has two options:

• Remaining cash on hand (including any leftover funds from the emergency $201
• Daily cash inflows (federal revenues received each day)

Since there will be virtually no cash on hand, absent some much more drastic measures, such as selling the Treasury's gold, Jack Lew will have to make do with spending what he makes: i.e., tax revenues.

And here comes the rub, because should we get to T+1, we will be in history territory, as "There is no precedent; all other debt limit impasses have been resolved without reaching the X Date. Treasury has never failed during a debt limit impasse to meet a payment obligation." No precedent? Kinda like the Fed injecting $3 trillion into the stock market...

None other than the Chairsatan has chimed in: "[Going past the X Date] would no doubt have a very adverse effect very quickly on the recovery. I'm quite certain of that.”

So what will happen, assuming the world does not end? Simple: prioritization. To wit:

If we reach the X Date, Treasury might either prioritize payments or make full days’ worth of payments once they receive sufficient revenues to cover all of a day’s obligations.

• Interest on the federal debt would likely be prioritized in either scenario.

Scenario # 1: Pay some bills, but not others

• Treasury might attempt to prioritize some types of payments over others. Prioritized payments would be made on time, others would not.
• Uncertain legality (no precedent)
• Unclear if it is feasible, given the design of Treasury’s computer systems

Scenario # 2: Make all of each day’s payments together once enough cash is available

• Treasury might wait until enough revenue is deposited to cover an entire day’s payments, and then make all of those payments at once.
  • (For example, upon reaching the X date, it might take two days of revenue collections to raise enough cash to make all of the payments due on day one. Thus, the first day’s payments would be made one day late. This, of course, would delay the second day’s payments to a later day.)

The issue, under scenario 1, is that the Treasury would have to choose and sort between 100 million monthly payments, and that roughly 40% of the funds owed for the month would go unpaid. As the chart below shows, of the 20 business days between February 15 and March 15 2013, there is a $175 billion deficit, 40% of the total outflows of $452 billion.

Specifically, the Yes/No option means that should the government pay these bills:

It won't be able to pay these bills:

For those who enjoy micromanagement, here is the two week daily cash flow forecast from February 15 to March 1, showing inflows and, mostly, outflows, in the period under discussion. Keep in mind that should the debt ceiling not be resolved in this 15 day period, the same cash flow analysis, usually done by bankruptcy consultants at the corporate level, will have to be extended on a month to month basis:

Yet the reality that while manageable, payments will quickly become problematic, especially for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, military, etc, as group after group scrambles to demand priority in order of payment.

In effect, the US will become one ongoing bankruptcy assignment, where the various impaired unsecured creditors will demand a right of superpriority. It is unclear which bankruptcy court they can voice their objections to, however.

* * *

But perhaps the biggest threat for the US when it crosses the X Date is not so much the debt interest, nor the prioritization of payments, but the roll over risk of some $500 billion in debt maturing between February 15 and March 15! That's right - recall that when it comes to the US debt, it is the ever greater frontloading of short-term maturities that amplify the interest rate risk facing the country. And while interest rates are likely to explode across the curve, what is virtually assured is that the rolling of the half trillion in debt will become impossible due to lack of funding, and the inability to find buyers of matched short-term debt to roll the retiring paper, in an environment in which suddenly it is unclear if even 4 week Bills will be money good. And for all those predicting a failed Treasury auction, this will be your time to shine, as it is unclear if even full direct and outright monetization of ultra short term debt by the Fed will be enough to get piggyback buyers on paper whose rate of return is so low as to not justify the risk of exposure to a real deal maturity non-payment default.

What else will happen? the BPS has some other ideas:

Additional borrowing costs for the federal government from delay in increasing the debt limit

• Additional rating agency downgrades are possible
• S&P downgraded last summer and reaction was not severe
• But there is uncertainty about effects of another downgrade since many funds are prohibited from holding non-AAA securities

Market risks beyond the X Date:

• Treasury market, interest rates
• Potential for serious equity market reaction (401(k)s, IRAs, other pensions)
• Our economy
• The global financial system

No guarantee of the outcome; risks are risks

In other words: while it is not the end of the world, what would happen on Day 1 (2, 3, etc) is the sudden realization that the game is, indeed, over, and that little by little everyone's head will have to be pulled out of the ponzi sand.

* * *
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, because realistically Congress will come to a compromise, even if it means 2-3 days of payment defaults, even if it means the early onset of the sequester, which together with the payroll tax cut expiration, would mean recession for the US as explained previously, is the final chart in the BPC presentation, which shows just how much the US debt ceiling will have to be increased by to get the country through the end of 2013 and 2014. The answer? See below:

That's right: we are looking at 2 more years of $1 trillion+ deficits, which means by January 1, 2015, there will have been 6 years in a row of $1 trillion deficits.

Sadly, "Banana republic" does not even come close to doing this country justice.

Source: Bipartisan Policy Center

[ralis]

[chi 2012]

[AsheSkyler]

I don't think banning guns is the solution any more than arming the population to the teeth. Neither extreme can be healthy. I don't think this problem of unnecessary violence happened overnight, and I don't think it'll be cured overnight. A start could be to stop glamorizing murder so much. It only seems to encourage the next nutter to try to top it, like some kind of sick video game where everybody wants the high score. (

)

Although the odds of either politicians or the media handling any problem properly is slim to none. Mostly none.

 

On a different note, I had to read the topic a few times to figure out what an "obomber" is before exploring the thread. I was thinking a reference to the old Super Nintendo game Bomberman.

[Owledge]

Obomber = Barack Ohbummer - United States Empire Supreme Leader and Nobel War Prize Winner ( BTW that prize is dynamite! )

 

I don't think banning guns is the solution any more than arming the population to the teeth. Neither extreme can be healthy. I don't think this problem of unnecessary violence happened overnight, and I don't think it'll be cured overnight. A start could be to stop glamorizing murder so much. It only seems to encourage the next nutter to try to top it, like some kind of sick video game where everybody wants the high score. (

)

Although the odds of either politicians or the media handling any problem properly is slim to none. Mostly none.

 

On a different note, I had to read the topic a few times to figure out what an "obomber" is before exploring the thread. I was thinking a reference to the old Super Nintendo game Bomberman.

The claim that people go on a killing spree because it is considered glamorous is absurd. The media has always acted like it does regarding violence, and there have always been violent thriller movies and such. Fiddling with symptoms will only mask the real problem, and that's what society does all the time. They're in denial and don't want to take responsibility. It's classical immaturity.

Also, I almost had to laugh at the TV show there consulting a psychiatrist who then gave the advice to make the reports boring. Problem solved, haha. Setriously, psychiatry is highly questionable because it violates so many scientific principles, and psychiatry is light years away from psychology, especially when goverment-appointed. Psychiatrists are licensed drug pushers for maintaining the dominant order, and there are interesting studies that show how the doctors in psychiatric clinics are the ones acting irrationally and like psychotic sociopaths.

 

As usual, the real causes are suppressed in the corporate media. I highly recommend the following video for some examples of what is kept from the mass public:

The Drugging of our Children

One very shocking example from that documentary is the fact that when a caring mother doesn't want her child to be forced into taking mind-numbing drugs for making it more obedient and controllable, she is accused - the mother - of kidnapping her own child and then the government will kidnap her child and hide him from her. This is severe tyranny. And as history repeats itself, it is possible because the masses are uninformed, fed with bullshit propaganda, and they want it that way.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Owledge