The American Ruling Class

[aljhoa]

Masters of War

Jim Willie has the best "dirt" and is generally the most pessimistic. Like Cassandra, he is also very accurate. He has a site, Golden Jackass and he now lives in Costa Rica. America has about 4% of the population of the world. About 20% of this number make an honest living.
The R.O.W. is hard at work producing while we all dream of "doing deals".

The Jeevas - Masters of War LYRICS - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Actually

I've already seen G.C. 'advocates' saying things like "Yes, not ALL mass shootings involved 'assault weapons', or even large capacity magazines but,..." they then go on to make OTHER arguments, which not only have nothing to do with Sandy Hook, but don't have anything to do with mass shootings at all, (and are untruths, as well).
For instance, in V.P. Joe Bidens 'chat', he said something like "The assault weapons ban is about more than JUST mass shootings; Police officers are regularly 'outgunned' by bad guys, using assault weapons.
Since the panel of 4 asking him questions weren't gun rights advocates, no one questioned anything he asserted, like "Really, Joe? How many Police officers have been shot or killed with 'assault weapons', any statistics on that?
Most Police officers are shot with HANDGUNS; clearly AFTER they ban assault weapons, they will use this argument to ban handguns, and then rifles and shotguns as well.
And after all, the FIRST 'mass shooting', in the Texas University Tower, involved 'hunting rifles', and he didn't have high capacity magazines, either.
These G.C. advocates will use any distortion, or outright lie, to 'play' to the fears of those who fear guns, or simply have no experience with guns.
The underlieing phylosophy makes perfect sense to such people; it is a BELIEF, like a religious belief, that is taken 'on faith'; The more available (easy access, they termit) guns are, within a given population, the MORE 'gun violence' there will be; they THINK, although they can't prove it, which is to say, they BELIEVE, there is a DIRECT, numerical and statistical correlation.
Then, having THAT core belief, they frame their second; LAWS restricting, limiting or reducing such availability or access will 'automatically' result in a reduction of such incidents of gun violence.
Because this is a belief, arguments based on logic will not deter them.
It gets down to a matter of #'s; IF there are more people who are A)NOT gun owners, and have an inate FEAR of guns, and B) Are not gun owners, aren't afraid of guns, per se, but just don't feel a need or interest in owning guns, than there are C) Gun owners, who firmly support keeping and bearing, eventually C) will lose the argument, at least in terms of PR, and legislation.

And I don't like leaving it all in the hands of SCOTUS, either; not at all confident what this or a future court MAY 'uphold', particularly after the Un-affordable Care act! They MIGHT say, for instance, that while there IS the 2nd amendment, Congress has unlimited right to tax; therefore they can put a tax of $1, $5, or more, per Bullet, on ammunition! Not saying you can't 'keep and bear', just saying its going to cost you thru the nose! Like everything else, there are no simple answers. Jim

[rickoff]

And I don't like leaving it all in the hands of SCOTUS, either; not at all confident what this or a future court MAY 'uphold', particularly after the Un-affordable Care act! They MIGHT say, for instance, that while there IS the 2nd amendment, Congress has unlimited right to tax; therefore they can put a tax of $1, $5, or more, per Bullet, on ammunition! Not saying you can't 'keep and bear', just saying its going to cost you thru the nose!

Yes, and it is already beginning to cost through the nose. I saw one young fellow on TV news this morning, while having breakfast, who was shown toting his AR-15 to a gun show. He said that he used to be able to buy a thousand rounds of ammo for something like a hundred dollars, but that now it costs him over $700. Of course the only reason this was shown on CNN was to make people fearful of what possible reason this fellow would have for needing such a large amount of ammo for a scary looking gun, but to gun owners the young man's concern stated a valid point that gun owners should be worried about. Another thing I heard of just recently is that the Marlin firearms company is going out of business. I'm not yet sure that what I heard is factual, but it was said that Marlin was bought out by some group or company which has direct ties to George Soros. Perhaps it is just part of a disinformation campaign meant to make gun rights activists look silly. Does anyone have the real story on that? If it is true, then it would appear that the gun abolitionists have figured out that buying gun companies, and then dismantling them, may well be their fastest route to eliminating new ownership of publicly held firearms. And if the story is not true, as one Internet debunking group claims, then GC advocates may just capitalize on the story as being a good avenue to pursue. Ever since Sandy Hook, firearm and ammo sales have escalated dramatically, and you can safely bet that the PTB will do whatever they need to in order to curtail this buying spree.

[gene gene]

Hi Rick,

Here is an article by John Macintosh. (special to CNN 12/27/12)
Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover - CNN.com

It speaks of the upcoming sale by Cerberus capital of the Freedom Group. Americas largest gun-maker.

The article seems to twist to some kind of (socially responsible capitalism)? ?

After reading several times, it leaves me wondering if John has written this article tongue-in-cheek or was he serious?

He throws around names like, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, & David Geffen.

If you can find the time, I would like to hear your take on this.

Thanks & regards, Gene

[rickoff]

Two days ago, Milwaukee sheriff David A Clarke issued a public service announcement telling Milwaukee residents that calling 911 when they are faced with a dangerous situation that threatens their personal safety is no longer their best option. As Clarke put it, "You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?”

This was awell stated and sensible public service announcement, but GC advocates were quick to pounce on it as being reckless advice that encourages gun and ammo sales, and which would make citizens less safe if the advice is followed.Jeri Bonavia, a GC advocate of the Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort group, said that sheriff Clarke is encouraging citizens to become vigilantes, and that he should resign if he cannot fulfill his role of protecting Milwaukee citizens. Even Milwaukee mayor, Tom Barrett, was quick to chime in, saying, “Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.” Sheriff Clarke responded to mayor Barrett's jab by saying, "Several years ago a tire iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day.”

CNN anchor Soledad Obrien was quick to arrange for sheriff Clarke to appear in a segment on her "Starting Point" morning news show this morning, and tried her best to make Clarke look foolish, but the sheriff was able to make some very good points in rebuttal to her attacks. I haven't found any clips of that interview up on the Internet yet, but will add a link when it becomes available.

[rickoff]

Hi Rick,

Here is an article by John Macintosh. (special to CNN 12/27/12)
Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover - CNN.com

It speaks of the upcoming sale by Cerberus capital of the Freedom Group. Americas largest gun-maker.

The article seems to twist to some kind of (socially responsible capitalism)? ?

After reading several times, it leaves me wondering if John has written this article tongue-in-cheek or was he serious?

If you can find the time, I would like to hear your take on this.

Thanks & regards, Gene

Wow, Gene! Thanks for the article link. I had the same wonderment while reading the article, asking myself if this fellow was dead on serious or really just doing this to spotlight the kind of mentality connected with GC advocacy. After all, the article is so blatantly written.

I can see that this is probably where the idea of George Soros being involved in a gun company buyout came from, as the author suggests that Soros and other wealthy individuals should spearhead such an effort. Then too, the author suggests that the effort should be called Bid For Freedom, to correspond to an effort to be the successful bidder in an auction to buy out Freedom Group, said to be the largest gun manufacturer in the US, and suggests that a BidForFreedom.org website be set up to solicit donations to ensure a successful bid at auction time. I checked, and found that the web site already exists. The whois lookup information regarding the website can be found here, and points to a Los Angeles group or individual whose actual name is "whois Guard Protected," meaning that he/she/they don't want anyone to know who the website creator is. Strange, isn't it. You would think that a legitimate group would be willing to state who they are, rather than hiding that fact, and of course this brings many more questions to mind, such as:
- Is this a serious GC effort, or just a scam set up to con people out of money sent in as donations aimed at achieving the stated goals?
- If this is a serious effort, then who is behind it, and who is behind them?

According to the whois lookup, the phone number is given to be 661-310-2107, and a reverse lookup at whitepages.com shows this number points to a Los Angeles company called namecheap.com That company runs an Internet business selling "cheap domain names," so this only tells us that the BidForFreedom website was established through them, and does not indicate that the site content was set up by anyone at that company. So, this too tells us nothing other than the fact that namecheap offers clients domains at $3.99 a year, and whois Guard at $1.58 additional.

One interesting fact, though, concerning the whois search data is that the BidForFreedom.org website was created on 12/27/2012, the same day that the CNN article was posted. That, of course, does not indicate in and of itself that John Macintosh established the website, but does indicate that someone acted very quickly to establish the idea as a reality. How quickly? Well, here's the whois data for website creation:

"Created On:27-Dec-2012 14:22:02 UTC"

UTC is "Universal Time," and its 5 hours ahead of US Eastern Standard Time. 14:22 UTC is therefore 9:22 am Eastern Standard Time (EST).

The CNN article is shown as: "updated 10:16 PM EST, Thu December 27, 2012."

Well, that just shows when the CNN article was "updated." It doesn't indicate when the story was initially posted, or written, by Macintosh. It does show, however, that the website was created about 13 hours before the CNN article was updated, so it was pretty darned quick on someone's part.

[aljhoa]

Astronomical Numbers
The ARGUS array is made up of several cameras and other types of imaging systems. The output of the imaging system is used to create extremely large, 1.8GP high-resolution mosaic images and video.
1.8 gigapixel ARGUS-IS. World's highest resolution video surveillance platform by DARPA - YouTube

Al

[dutchdivco]

Rick.

Your post regardng Sheffiff David Clark validates my earlier point; many 'Law Enforcement Officers are NOT 'in favor of' or supporting of 'Gun Control'; they ARE in favor of doing things to keep guns out of the WRONG hands. Many come from a background (family, culture, etc.) which is 'gun friendly'.

GC advocates will often say "Police Chiefs" are supporting their efforts, but many line officers are NOT. They KNOW all laws are reactive, NOT proactive. And, MOST Law enforcement is ALSO reactive, NOT proactive. They KNOW this, cause they experience it every day.

I wonder if Schumer, Fienstien, etc. have actually bought stock in ammunition companies, as soon as the News about Sandy Hook broke? Just as I wonder if those who could control the story on the fiscal cliff, ALSO 'stocked up', and then manipulated the story, in order to manipulate the price. Yes, they passed a Law, last year, prohibiting 'insider trading' by employees of the Fed.Gov't. (even tho 'insider' trading was ALREADY illegal!), but it would be easy enough to do it, with 'straw buyers'.

Certainly, Fienstien, Schumer, etc. are using this for a 'fund-raising' excercise, and building up their 'war chests', for re-election.Jim

[rickoff]

Thanks for arranging all those Sandy Hook video links, Glen. Most all of these, or similar ones, had already been posted previously, but putting them all together in one post makes research much easier.

Now concerning what you had said about Wayne Carver:

There is only one official response to the "Sandy Hook Elementary" tragedy by Wayne Carver, the Chief Medical Examiner on site saying, possibly a Long Rifle was used ( @ 5:04 )

His actual response was a bit more definite than that, as what he actually said was, "All the wounds that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon."

And when then asked by a reporter to confirm that a "rifle was the primary weapon," carver replied with a simple "YES."

Then another voice says, "but the long rifle was discovered in a car. That's not correct?" To which Carver replied, "Not correct, sir."

A police press statement videotaped the day after the Sandy Hook incident would have us believe that what Carver said about a long gun not being found in a car was correct, but video taken the night before the police press conference does show police extracting a long gun or two from the trunk of Lanza's car.

In this NBC newscast from December 21, a week after the Sandy Hook incident, we are told that the reporter has "new information from a couple of federal and state officials." The "new information" is said to be that there were 4 handguns found inside the school, rather than the 2 as we were first told, and that no other weapons were taken inside the school. The reporter goes on to say that Adam Lanza had brought an AR-15 type assault rifle to the school, but that "we have been told by several officials that he left that in the car."

To complicate matters even further, another video has been posted which shows rather conclusively that the rifle being handled by the police officer before removal from the car is not an AR-15.

Pretty strange, too, how the videos show the car trunk search conducted at night, when police had clearly cordoned off the car shortly after the Sandy Hook incident took place. Everyone watching news coverage that day knew that this was the car Adam Lanza was said to have driven to the school. Why were police waiting for cover of darkness to conduct a search of the car, and why did they carelessly handle the gun in such a manner as to potentially destroy fingerprint evidence on the gun and shell casings? None of this makes any sense if this was a real homicide investigation.

Since there were, and still are, so many conflicting pieces of information regarding Sandy Hook, it is just about impossible for authorities to now issue a report that would not immediately be questioned for its accuracy and truthfulness, so that is probably the reason why no such report has been, or will be, issued.

[rickoff]

I wonder if Schumer, Fienstien, etc. have actually bought stock in ammunition companies, as soon as the News about Sandy Hook broke?

I wouldn't be surprised, Jim, to learn that is so. There is something about Schumer and Feinstein, though, that is known and paints them as hypocrites when it comes to their anti-gun agenda. It's quite clear that they are only against guns when it comes to We The People having them. Schumer packs a pistol, and has an unrestricted pistol permit, something which is very rare and difficult to obtain in New York City. Feinstein packs a .357 magnum revolver, and has an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Read more about this here.

[Mad Scientist]

Yes both Schumer and Feinstein both have gun permits so naturally the gun bill they support exempts them and other congress members from being bothered by its provisions.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Now concerning what you had said about Wayne Carver:

His actual response was a bit more definite than that, as what he actually said was, "All the wounds that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon."

And when then asked by a reporter to confirm that a "rifle was the primary weapon," carver replied with a simple "YES."

Then another voice says, "but the long rifle was discovered in a car. That's not correct?" To which Carver replied, "Not correct, sir."

Hi Rick,

I know you busted me on being over general in my statement on what Wayne Carver the Chief Medical Examiner exact words were and my concern was from his admission of having one third of a century of experience failing to explain what caliber the bullets used in the slaying of the 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The confusion at the media press conference was with Wayne Carver referring to the Connecticut State Police on the long rifle weapon type, bullet caliber and cartridge sizes. The formally released reports of hand guns two of the four weapons his mother owned was a Glock 10mm, Sig-Sauer 9mm with the Bushmaster .223 and Izhmash Canta 12ga shot gun. If Wayne Carver the Chief Medical Examiner is the expert would have no problem with the identification of a .223 caliber bullet it's fairly straight forward for a professional, but the 9mm and 10mm bullets are really close to the same size.


During a national news media interview on 12-16 2012 @ 11:48 AM at Newtown, Connecticut Latest presser from Connecticut State Police - YouTube on "Sandy Hook Elementary School" shooting incident, Lt. J. Paul Vance ( Department Spokesman/Media Relations Commander ) at the Connecticut State Police stated .....

( @ 0:22 ) Quote - I will not and can not detail pieces of the investigation

( @ 2:02 ) Quote - Misinformation that's being posted on social media sites, there has been misinformation coming from people posing as the shooter in this case, posing using other ID's, mimicking this crime and crime scene, and criminal activity that took place in this community, there's been some things in some what a threatening manner, it is important to note that we have discussed with Federal authorities that these issues are crimes, they will be investigated State wide and Federally and prosecution will take place when people perpetrating this information are identified. _ again _ All information relative to this case is coming from these microphones and any information coming from other sources cannot be confirmed and in many cases it's been found is inaccurate.

My concern is with Obama and the left wing cronies are pushing modifying our "Second Amendment" rights, with this over reaching banning or gun grab on semi-automatic firearms now redefined as military style assault weapons.

How can anyone including Media Outlets, Congressional and Legislative Leaders with a conscious "WITHOUT" the official police report from the Connecticut State Police create "NEW" legislation for laws on "Gun Control" (banning/gun grab) based on the deaths at "Sandy Hook Elementary School" when there is "NO" official police report released yet, possibly not until June 2013 ??

Does these media outlets, reporters and politicians think all American citizens have "Benghazi-itus" and can pass LAWS under our eyes and tell us "there were 20 innocent children that were murdered, what difference does it make if it was a semi-automatic hand gun or a rifle, the general public has "NO" need and enough of these firearms"

Best,
Glen

[dutchdivco]

Yes, Glen

Thats exactly what is/will happen. As I posted earlier, I have already seen GC 'advocates' moving gradually away from focusing on Sandy Hook, to focusing on 'mass shooting incidents (in general), to focusing on 'Gun violence', in an even MORE 'General' way. In short, they are 'capitalising' on the 'tragedy', in order to forward their long-standing agenda.

Just announced, Sen. Marc Rubio, and 3 other Repub. Senators, with 4 Dem. Senators, have just released proposed 'Comprehensive' immigration reform legislation. It would (reportedly) grant immediate 'legal status' to the (estimated) 11 million illegals currently in the country. They would be issued Social Security #'s, etc. THEN, there would be so-called 'triggers' that would be enacted later; better border enforcement, better work-place enforcement, etc. But, once these people are given 'legal status', it cannot be revoked, so these so-called 'triggers' are shooting blanks; that is, if they FAIL to enact or enforce such reforms, these people will still have 'legal status'. Oh, and they WILL be on a 'path to citisenship', and they WILL be moved to the 'head of the line', AHEAD of those who are staying in their home countries, applying in the legal way.

We've seen this movie, before; back in 1986, I think it was. And subsequently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others lobbied to get immigration to 'let up' on businesses hiring, which of coarse is one of the MAJOR 'draws'. The 'tighter' border enforcement WAS done,....1/2 way; Tightened the border in So. Cal, and Texas, but left a big hole in So. Az.
So, here we go, again.

Remember the talk about 'moral hazard' during the financial bail-out? Heres another example; what we are saying, (just as we did last time) is Sneak into the country illegally, and eventually we will grant you citesenship.

They really DO think, (in D.C.) that we have short attention spans, and short memories,...and unforttunately, I'm afraid they are right. Applies to immigration reform, to Gun control,...anything else THEY want to do. The Sheeple are just that; Dumb sheep, easily led. A little fear, a 'judas goat', and free roaming herd is 'penned' without them even realising it!

Some are saying that the Dems are attempting to secure some kind of 'permanent majority'; by garnering the majority of the hispanic vote, by these GC measures, by various efforts to 'marginalise' conservatives, and just ignore them and do what THEY want, and think 'best'; we've seen such situations in other countries, and its usually a recipe for Revolution.Jim

[rickoff]

Some are saying that the Dems are attempting to secure some kind of 'permanent majority'; by garnering the majority of the hispanic vote, by these GC measures, by various efforts to 'marginalize' conservatives

Yes Jim, the Dems are doing it now, just as Repubs tried it back when Bush jr was in office. The Hispanic vote already goes largely to the Democrat side, but Dems want all of it. Repubs don't want Hispanics to think that they are against them, so they will by and large be quite willing to go along with these illegal immigration amnesties. That's why Rubio is in there spearheading the effort for republicans. They are looking at Rubio as the most electable candidate in 2016 because he appeals to a wide swath of Americans and is Latino himself. If he went up against Hillie in 2016, which is a likely scenario, the Hispanic vote could quite possibly be swayed in his favor, but would otherwise be lost to Dems. Repubs could not afford for that to happen, so will push Rubio like crazy. Of course he's no more eligible than Barry, but what the heck do Repubs care about that? So look for another sham election in 2016.

As far as the Democrat effort to marginalize conservatives is concerned, they needn't bother with that because there are darned few conservatives left in Congress. In fact, you could probably count them on one hand.

[rickoff]

Hi Rick,

I know you busted me on being over general in my statement on what Wayne Carver the Chief Medical Examiner exact words were and my concern was from his admission of having one third of a century of experience failing to explain what caliber the bullets used in the slaying of the 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Yes, that's one of my concerns, too. Why couldn't he release that information? Is it because they told him to keep his mouth shut on that until they figured out exactly how they wanted the story to go? Just another puppet, in my opinion.

The confusion at the media press conference was with Wayne Carver referring to the Connecticut State Police on the long rifle weapon type, bullet caliber and cartridge sizes. The formally released reports of hand guns two of the four weapons his mother owned was a Glock 10mm, Sig-Sauer 9mm with the Bushmaster .223 and Izhmash Canta 12ga shot gun. If Wayne Carver the Chief Medical Examiner is the expert would have no problem with the identification of a .223 caliber bullet it's fairly straight forward for a professional, but the 9mm and 10mm bullets are really close to the same size.

Since the long gun retrieved from the car trunk was not a Bushmaster, then whose gun was it if the mom only owned four guns, none of which fits the description of the gun found in the trunk, and shown on video? There are so many unanswered questions, and all questions regarding the guns should have been fully resolved long before now. It's the withholding of this information which causes so much skepticism and speculation. Thing is, though, they will probably never release a report, and will expect that inquiring minds will fade away with time, which usually does hold true, since there will always be the next big story to come along and capture the public's interest.